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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scribz Riley[edit]

Scribz Riley (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 music producer. The claim of being a Grammy nominee is unsourced, and I'm not sure what association they are using to claim this; they're not listed on the official website of nominees. The only coverage I found was [1]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm guessing the "Grammy nominee" is going to be as tenuous as something like co-writing and co-producing one song on Khalid's album American Teen which was nominated for Best Urban Contemporary Album. Richard3120 (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NM. No significant news coverage. Nothing in his production discography has any entries on major music charts. Newslinger (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NM — Preceding unsigned comment added by GentlemanY (talk • contribs) 13:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NM - Not enough coverage Snowycats (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : About a non-notable musician , clearly fails WP:NM . Kpgjhpjm 15:26, 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual energy[edit]

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

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

This is WP:OR, and I can't make any sense of it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, have added this afd to the above lists in the hope that editors expert in these fields can have a look at this and explain what its about, also, there is a similar article to this one - Advanced wave. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree; if the result here is to draft-ify that article should be moved as well; with any other result it should probably have a separate discussion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Advanced wave should also be deleted. We already have an article on the legitimate use of that term. XOR'easter (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know I shouldn't have laughed when I saw that the linked article was called "Retarded potential". What can I say? I am a bad person. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ref. "I am a bad person" : You're clearly not suited for becoming president ;-) -- DexterPointy (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, WP:NOT may apply to these? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sticking my neck out here - well outside my area of expertise; but from what I can see, this article spends 50% of its real estate on summarizing material already covered elsewhere, and the rest on an enormous blob of original research. All done in borderline incomprehensible prose. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Speedy Keep this is a good article for many reasons. Please contact me for additional information. Brian Everlasting (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Above editor is the main contributor to the article. DMacks (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not: their only edit to the article is fixing a typo. – Uanfala (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. @Brian Everlasting: it doesn't work that way. Discussion is on-wiki, and wiki article content needs to be supported by on-wiki citations to reliable sources (compare to WP:FRINGE). DMacks (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft (Move to Draft) - It's in the neighbourhood of broken English, and it's in conflict with this part of WPNOT.
  @Brian Everlasting: : Would you consider offering to become a "ghostwriter" and peer-reviewer on it? -- DexterPointy (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This Draft/Article has previously been in trouble, ref. User talk:Imrecons -- DexterPointy (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the editor's contribution history so far, I would have zero confidence in him producing anything useful from "ghostwriting" this article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After spending quite some time searching, I got wiser, and the below picked findings are perhaps the most helpful.

- http://www.openscienceonline.com/journal/archive2?journalId=726&paperId=4042

- https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_collapse_of_the_wave_function_a_dynamical_process

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics/Archive_May_2015#A_draft_article_for_your_consideration

My "Conclusion": This particular "Mutual Energy theorem" seems to be the brainchild of one single individual (Shuang ren Zhao), and only endorsed by a fairly narrow group connected to him. If that's true, then it's not suited for a Wikipedia article.
-- DexterPointy (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete So there seems to be some papers on the concept of "Mutual Energy", the earliest is "The simplification of formulas of electromagnetic fields by using mutual energy formula" S Zhao - Journal of Electronics, PR of China, 1989 [2] This published in an obscure journal with 4 citations. There are other articles on the subject [3] all featuring S Zhao, all in arvix or open access publications with few citations. This looks like a small group of related publications which has not had received acknowledgement from the wider academic community. --Salix alba (talk): 16:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Advertising for a concept that has received no scholarly recognition, and it's squatting on the name of a legitimate term one sees occasionally (synonymous with interaction energy). XOR'easter (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the article consists of a mix of (1) well-known facts described in a confusing way, (2) true but obscure and non-notable facts, (3) utter nonsense. --Steve (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Assume we have a transformator." Yeah, right... The article is close to illiterate. Was it automatically translated? If so, maybe the original made some sense in whatever language it was written but it probably was not any sort of an encyclopaedia article and any sense it did have does not seem to have survived the process. This makes it impossible to evaluate whether there is a real topic here, whether it is correctly named or whether we already cover it under some other name. I suggest a good dose of WP:TNT with no prejudice to anybody who understands the alleged topic, and who can explain it coherently, having another try. I suggest also looking at Advanced wave which is by the same author although perhaps not so glaringly incoherent. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've now created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced wave.--Salix alba (talk): 18:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Sbyrnes321 (talk · contribs) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Badly written and OR, wrong in many places. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as mostly incoherent gobbledygook. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete (and do not draftify). To the extent that this is not just buzzword/equation salad, with classical references thrown in haphazardly to make it look important, it appears to be original research. Certainly it is not of any use to readers. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sbyrnes321 (talk · contribs). The article is so full of technobabble that, as Pauli said, it is not even wrong. --MaoGo (talk) 09:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The most of the topic is covered on other places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GentlemanY (talk • contribs) 13:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Inductance, Bearian (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't merge. The article is too flakey to have any place on Wikipedia. if anything Redirect. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - I expected an article related to this, and what I got was a great big load of bollocks. Fringe science doesn't belong. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 20:07, 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 redirect to OrCAD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PSpice circuit file[edit]

PSpice circuit file (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 unreferenced article about an obscure file type used by only one product seems to fail all aspects of notability. Suggest deleting and maybe (?) redirecting to OrCAD. Toddst1 (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep However the article is unreferenced but it is informational. It could be tagged for 'Unreferenced'GentlemanY (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GentlemanY: Sure it's informational, but what makes you think the information is correct? Toddst1 (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to ORCAD. This seems to be a very niche subject; I would imagine that anybody interested could get all this information from the software documentation, which I also imagine to be the source for the article.TheLongTone (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ORCAD. Topic was split out of PSpice in summary style just before that article was turned into a redirect to ORCAD. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:15, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blockium[edit]

Blockium (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)

Product related to crypto-currency; the references are not to reliable sources and do not demonstrate notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. New product by new startup. Not even close to meeting NPRODUCT/NCORP.Icewhiz (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails. GentlemanY (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Notability[reply]
• Delete Usual complaints, GNG, RS, indepth, SigCov. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a paper trading app - this is a fairly common marketing gimmick. Also no independent reliable sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP Snowycats (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : No independent sources and also fails WP:NCORP , WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT , might have well gone for speedy deletion . Kpgjhpjm 15:32, 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 and redirect to Alexander Hamilton#On slavery. I believe there is enough consensus that the content is unreliable that it warrants deletion before redirection, although I am willing to provide copies to anyone who wishes to evaluate it for themselves and possibly incorporate anything that can be salvaged into the main article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Hamilton and slavery[edit]

Alexander Hamilton and slavery (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 WP:POVFORK article relies so heavily on unreliable sources that it is worthy of deletion.

• Michelle DuRoss is the most heavily cited and quoted single source for this page. She is identified here as a history professor and as a historian. Her publication is cited 29 times as footnote 9, and 7 more times as footnote 23.

DuRoss's list of publications on Google Scholar is a total of two, the other one being her dissertation. As it turns out, DuRoss seems to have been either a Ph.D. student at SUNY Albany, or a very recent Ph.D. graduate, when the cited article was written. She was definitely not a professor when it was written.^[1]

If we look at the journal that published her article, Early America Review, we find that it wasn't exactly a peer-reviewed scholarly publication, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. It was an Internet journal (see From the Publisher). I saw no indication that this journal even had an editor; submissions were directed to the publisher (see submission guidelines), and it appeared to be a one-man operation.

• Ishmael Reed is cited here for two articles, both extensively quoted here. The first article by Reed is cited 10 times (footnote 10), and the second is cited 4 times (footnote 14). In both of them, Reed in turn quotes and relies upon "Professor Michelle Duross, of the University at Albany, State University of New York", which he writes out in full both times, inflating her appearance of authority to bolster his own. The reliability of these two Reed references can be judged (per WP:NOTRELIABLE and WP:BIASED) by reading Wikipedia's article on CounterPunch, the magazine in which they were both published.

• Allan McLane Hamilton, cited here 5 times (footnote 1), may be the original source of all allegations that Hamilton owned slaves, and is relied on by other cited references. He wrote a biography of his grandfather, whom he never knew personally. Dr. Hamilton was a psychiatrist and medical doctor, but it is misleading to identify him as a "historian" as this article does. Dr. Hamilton looked at his grandfather's business ledgers, and characterized several cryptic entries as evidence that Hamilton had purchased a slave for himself. It appears that unless Hamilton clearly identified that a particular purchase was done on behalf of a named legal client or family member (such as John Barker Church), his grandson simply assumed without proof that Hamilton was buying a slave for himself. (There are no citations to any of Hamilton's correspondence or writings that would indicate that he owned slaves, and no cited evidence of slaves in Hamilton's will or in lists of his assets.)

Original research or synthesis

• Footnotes 37, 38, and 41 appear to be original research.
• Primary sources are cited at footnotes 16, 21, 22, 26-28, 30, 39, and 40. The passages that rely on them may be impermissible synthesis, or may be missing the citation to their actual source.

Self-published sources

• A self-published Tumblr post, http://alexanderhammyton.tumblr.com/post/144430999866/on-hamilton-and-slavery, is cited here 11 times (footnote 12).
• A self-published book by Alan J. Clark (published using Author House) is cited as footnote 33.
• A self-published blog post by Jack Stanley, http://edisoneffect.blogspot.com/2012/08/was-aaron-burr-really-as-bad-as-we-say.html, is cited as footnote 35.
• A self-published Reddit comment by "silveredbow" is cited 7 times (footnote 36).

For at least those reasons, I propose deleting redirecting Alexander Hamilton and slavery to Alexander Hamilton#On slavery. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC) revised 13:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lwarrenwiki (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no reason to have a seperate article on this subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lwarrenwiki makes a convincing case this article is based on fringe sources. Rjensen (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. DuRoss got her PhD sometime between 2000/11 https://www.albany.edu/history/57611.php.

Early American Review has apparently gone through a possible change in ownership since 2011 - their original appearance & present appearance are quite different (the present incarnation is prominently selling/pushing tutoring services). Their editorial oversight is somewhat opaque but I am not sure that DuRoss' article/thesis should be thrown out completely - it seems to at least be well-referenced.

Dr. DuRoss' present job status remains MIA to me - and believe me I did look. Shearonink (talk) 04:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AHA directory shows 2011 PhD under another name: Carrigan, Michelle State Univ. of New York, Albany, Dept. of History Dissertation Title: "The Divorce of Isaac and Elizabeth Gouverneur: Sensibility and Law in the Revolutionary Era" Dissertation completed, 2011 Rjensen (talk) 05:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that info. Dr. Carrigan is presently an Assistant Professor of History & ​Discipline Leader - History in the Humanities Department of Indian River State College. Shearonink (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, she's a legit history scholar. However the article in question does not pass the RS tests--an unknown journal and--much more decisive--no cites in the scholarly literature which on Hamilton is very large and esp keen on slavery topics. Rjensen (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteRedirect. As the proposer, I've just updated my deletion request at the top, to change the suggested remedy to a redirect to Alexander Hamilton#On slavery. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bad sources all the way. Thomas DiLorenzo is not a historian but an Economics Professor who likes writing about history (for which he gets rather "interesting" reviews.
• I vote to Keep.  I wish also to employ instant-runoff voting on this matter: should the Keep votes not win the day, I wish for my vote to be converted to a Redirect vote.  allixpeeke (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect back to the main article. I suspect the interest in the subject is due to him being a recent theatrical subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 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 America's Next Top Model. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Stewart (model)[edit]

Shannon Stewart (model) (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)

Only coverage I could find is routine coverage of America's Next Top Model and interviews which simply state she was a contestant on the show. Could easily be covered in ANTM cycle 1 and/or ANTM cycle 17 (WP:BLP1E). Propose redirect to America's Next Top Model for this reason. Bold redirect was reverted by Ratherbe2000 with no rationale. Linguist^unEins^uno (Linguist111) 06:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as proposed. In a brief search, I can't find anything significant that is unrelated to America's Next Top Model, so I don't think WP:BIO is met (although sometimes it's tough to be certain when Googling relatively common names such the subject's). Redirecting the reader to the relevant America's Next Top Model page is best. Edgeweyes (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All you have to do is find more sources for the post-antm career, pageantry and personal life. This person is very notable off the show, and has more modeling work than what's on the section. This same user deleted pages for the other runner-ups and contestants AND removed the last names of the foreign contestants for the worst possible reasons so I would take him with a grain of salt. The page will be kept, and the other pages will be revived after their wrong deletion, this is bullshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratherbe2000 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratherbe2000: Please read WP:ADHOM – the purpose of this discussion is to assess whether Shannon Stewart merits a standalone article. Arguments about a nominator's actions will not influence the outcome of a deletion discussion. I'd suggest you provide links to reliable secondary sources that show that the subject meets WP:GNG. Also, I recommend you read WP:AGF. Linguist^unEins^uno (Linguist111) 23:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. I agree with the nominator's arguments. The sources on the page, and those I can find from searches fall well short of establishing notability. Mcewan (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What sources did you try to find? She was in ads for Macy's, Dillard's, Sephora, Teen vogue which you can find on All-Antm. (And no, it is NOT an unreliable source, because fanart and fake images are not allowed as their policy.) and her double season appearance on the show, plus guest spots on other cycles, plus her beauty pageant history (nationally mind you) there is no way this person isn't notable. this page will be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratherbe2000 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratherbe2000: Your second keep vote has been struck because users are not allowed to vote more than once. Again, if you can find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independant of the subject (per WP:GNG) and verify this information, that will support your argument. All-ANTM appears to be a website created by an anonymous Internet user so it cannot be considered a reliable source. See WP:IRS for info about identifying reliable sources. You may also wish to read WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E and WP:ASSERTN. Linguist^unEins^uno (Linguist111) 17:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect All rather pedestrian routine non notable coverage. Nothing in depth either. Curdle (talk) 13:23, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HACERA[edit]

HACERA (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 blockchain-related software project. Created by SPA The3hugger, maybe covert advertising. MER-C 12:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. No reliable sources found. Can't find any good references for the article's two sentences except from the project web site. Newslinger (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no notable coverage. DferDaisy (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG Snowycats (talk) 04:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : Clearly non-notable , no independent reliable sources and possibly contains promotional material . Kpgjhpjm 15:42, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rio de Janeiro Gay New Year's Eve[edit]

Rio de Janeiro Gay New Year's Eve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The references used are weak at best and there are plenty of weasel words on the article. It reads more like a tourism advert. Looks like it doesn't meet WP:EVENT notability Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 21:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no reliable references about this; of the 4 references, three are about gay culture in Brazil in general, and the 4th is from a marketing site. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Rio de Janeiro#New Year's Eve. Not notable enough on its own, but the article content is a perfect match for the main Rio de Janeiro article. Newslinger (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article doesn't cite reliable sources, and the content of this article is too promotional in nature to be merged into Rio de Janeiro#New Year's Eve. Newslinger (talk) 20:01, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Porto da Barra Beach[edit]

Porto da Barra 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)

Not quite sure if this meets Wikipedia's guidelines of notability. The only references used is a link to the Guardian post about it being the top 10 beach of the world. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per the nomination, which states there is not necessarily any notability problem, and suggests this is one of the top ten beaches in the world. :) Apparently wp:BEFORE not performed. We don't want AFDs as fishing expeditions. --Doncram (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's a lot of claims being made but almost none of them are cited. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 04:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A before search brings up many different sources discussing the beach. Passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 07:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I expect there are better refs in Portuguese. [4] and [5] aren't great sources but should be enough. A merge with Barra (neighborhood) might also be reasonable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:54, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Rattenbury[edit]

Andrew Rattenbury (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 GNG nothing found in a before search. The sources are too weak. 1 is his agent's page and the other is a "local boy done good " story from a local paper. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a much deeper before search yields some significant critical reviews of his stage adaptation of The Postman Always Rings Twice (novel)#Adaptations. It sucked! but that does not mean he is not notable.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. He may not be often mentioned but his list of TV credits is also to long to ignore and has generated some critical reviews.[13][14]--- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These would be useful as sources for the play but they barely mention Rattenbury. none of these sources are sufficient to meet GNG as it is not in-depth coverage of the subject. and they just add to the fact that he does not meet NAUTHOR as none of the following criteria are filled

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

He is a jobbing television script writer that has made a foray into theatre on a piece that was a failure but none of the reviews really talk about the adaptation just a couple of lines ...without fixing the stop/start nature of a script that suggests a screenplay awkwardly adapted for the boards. or this one the strain is beginning to show in Andrew Rattenbury's screen- -to-stage adaptation or this one Andrew Rattenbury's stage version of this scenario seems more interested in cars than in most of the characters.. I can't really see how adapting a screen play to theatre for this piece can be described as creating a significant work as all the reviews panned it and were barely interested by the writing. There is not enough in-depth coverage and this is the acid test to passing WP:BASIC. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:FILMMAKER. This was the only significant biographical secondary source I could find, though it hardly pushes this article past the threshold of notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as has been explained so eloquently above, he does not meet the notability guidelines of writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per Dom. Nha Trang ^Allons! 14:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fFails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG Snowycats (talk) 04:23, 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. Good comments, good discussion. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Arora (cyclist)[edit]

Ankit Arora (cyclist) (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, freelance journalist on leave of absence, push-biking around India in pursuit of a Guinness World Records-entry. We don't get to know a whole lot more about him, and searches for sources are obstructed by false positives about his namesake, the TV actor Ankit Arora. The article was deprodded, and two more sentences about the bicycle journey have been added. It is still a WP:BLP1E case that fails WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Sam Sailor 05:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 05:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 05:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 05:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Basically, a good news story for the last item on the news programme. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:BLP1E. Fails WP:NSPORTS. Record attempt tied to a social cause garnering temporary, feel-good, local-media attention does not make the subject notable by wikipedia's encyclopedic standards. Worth noting that the current record holder in the Longest journey by bicycle in a single country category received comparable media attention, but (rightly) does not have a wikipedia article. He is not even mentioned in any of the sources for the Ankit Arora article, illustrating how fleeting the coverage of such feats often is. Abecedare (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Several reliable news outlets have covered the subject, as evidenced by The New Indian Express, The Hindu and Mathrubhumi. The subject is pursuing his second record, thus WP:BLP1E does not apply. Article passes WP:GNG and WP:Bio. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC) AuthorAuthor (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, none of the sources covers subject, witch is the person Ankit Arora. They cover the story that he's biking around India, and it is a good example of what we do not write about on Wikipedia because WP:NOTNEWSPAPER: "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". As a person, Arora has had no WP:IMPACT. Sam Sailor 08:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • At least two articles go far more in depth than just the bicycle trips. One is a full-length feature story about him. Stating differently, with all due respect, does not make it so. Clearly passes WP:SIGCOV. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV, consistentancy and indepth coverage is established—The New Indian Express, The Hindu and Mathrubhumi. Few more local newspaper has coverage and are still covering. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Accesscrawl (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
• Keep Abundant in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. RS will allow improvement of the article as the subject has passed WP:GNG Lorstaking (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now per below. Lorstaking (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep BLP1E is not relevant as subject was covered by reliable sources at different times and coverage is significant detailed. [15][16] Raymond3023 (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – As user Abecedare has already more or less made the points which I wanted to make, I will focus on the keep !votes. The keep !votes of the page creator and others are based on the three sources – TH, NIE, & Mathrubhumi. So, let's have a look at them:

a) TH: This is more or less an interview of the subject, although it has a few independent bits. Here are the encyclopedic bits from it:

"Cyclist traveller Ankit Arora is aiming for a Guinness world record for the longest journey on a bicycle within a single country."...."He aims to complete 21,000 by the end of the expedition."...."In 2016, Arora entered India Book of records for a 69-hour continuous cycling trip covering 702 Kms on the golden triangle."...."During the course of his journey, Arora is simultaneously video documenting the state of Government schools across India."

b) NIE: Like the previous source, this one is also mostly an interview, which is filled with chit-chat. Here's the only relevant bit from the article:

"For Ankit Arora from Jaipur, cycling had never been more than just an activity until two and a half years back." Other relevant bits are just the repeat of the previous source.

c) Mathrubhumi: This is a short article from a local newspaper of Kerala, which mentions that Arora has arrived in Alappuzha, and that he intends to make the aforementioned record. It also mentions that Round Table India is supporting him. And that's it.

So these sources hardly provide around five relevant lines, which obviously aren't sufficient for WP:GNG. Actually, the coverage is so meagre & trivial that the subject isn't even meeting WP:BLP1E. And I am unable to find the "significant" and "abundant in-depth coverage", as claimed by the keep !voters.

Finally, AfDs aren't a !vote count, and I am yet to see one good reason to keep this BLP. Had the subject actually made any notable record, we could've merged/redirected it somewhere, but even that's not the case here. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the encyclopedic bits are enough for the subject to prove notability. This bits passes the article with WP:GNG Accesscrawl (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, GNG requires chunks, not bits. We cannot create a standalone article when the independent coverage is hardly equivalent to around five lines. BTW, here's the relevant quote from WP:GNG: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – fails GNG/BASIC. This is a typical case of WP:NOTNEWS. My independent searches couldn't find in-depth sources, and the sources provided by keep !voters hardly scratch the surface, as explained by my previous comments. Everything else is already explained by the nom & other delete !voters. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: These are just trivial mentions, and the keep voters seem to be dazzled by WP:OOHLOOKSOURCES! 0+0+0=0. Nha Trang ^Allons! 14:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Respond Sources look pretty strong. If this doesn't passes WP:GNG what else does? It is getting regular coverage in independent sources. Accesscrawl (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:BLP1E - its feelgood clickbait about a not notable journalist taking what appears to be a working holiday. Curdle (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. Trying for a world record does not equate to notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article cites only one independent source, and it tells us very little about the person, not the "in-depth discussion" that is required. Maproom (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. 49.145.244.119 (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG Snowycats (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have struck my vote above per the arguments here. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 22:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 22:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I was torn on this. The text as written doesn't really do the subject justice (should focus on the record in the lead). There are now four independent reliable sources. Of these, three are long, detailed pieces, for a national sporting record (or the pre-success attempt at it), in two comparatively well-regarded, national Indian newspapers with significant outside-India readership, plus a regional one. (The fourth is a small piece in a lesser-known publication, but certainly does no harm.) The newest addition dwells on the record, not on personal "chit chat" as NitinMlk put it. But the big two really are mostly interviews with little material of encyclopedic interest; they're mostly primary not secondary source material. How much print a major newspaper thought the subject was worth hints at notability, but lengthy, fluffy interview stuff doesn't quite establish it. Part of me wants to think articles like this are the kind of WP:Systemic bias gap we're supposed to be filling. If this article were about an American or Brit, with similar coverage in US or UK newspapers, I suspect it would be a snowball keep. But that's not a good thing.

  I would rather see articles on Indian sportspeople in international-class competition. And this record isn't something subject to regular competition anyway, it's one of those obscure Guinness Book things. I have concerns about the future of the article: is it likely that this subject is ever going to do anything else that edges toward notable? Do we have any indications he's going to become an Olympian or something? More likely that he'll go back to work as a journalist and remain an amateur cyclist. So, in the end I think it should be deleted, and if he unmistakably climbs the notability wall in 6 months or 3 years or whatever, then we'll have something more substantial to write about.

  On the other hand, I think this article would be kept, hands-down, if it were about a bit-part actor who'd landed a role as a witch or a martial-arts monk in a few episodes of a TV show hardly anyone watches, because !voters would seize upon fluffy Entertainment Tonight and People magazine coverage as "establishing notability". Our idea of what constitutes notable in different fields is terribly skewed, and we're giving out WP articles to an F-load of actors who are not notable but simply competent. Same goes for one-hit-wonder pop music acts: the song is notable, the band is not. Entertainment-press coverage is worth far less than this Indian sports coverage, because it's not actually substantive or independent (when it doesn't consists of interviews, it's either primary-source reviewer opinion-mongering, or weird paparazzi creeping). The entertainment press exist for the sole purpose of reporting on and regurgitating trivia, to sell you on the idea that random, overpaid, marginally competent but pretty (or, sometimes, strangely compellingly ugly) people should be worshipped because they're entertaining. Almost all of these publications' funding comes from advertising money of the studios whose shows/films/music they're writing about, and they're more often than not ultimately owned by the same conglomerates as the studios themselves; they're a giant, shared house organ of pseudo-celebrity cults of personality. Anyway, this cyclist is the close equivalent of a one-hit wonder band or an actor with a minor recurring role in four episodes of a TV show. It's a fifteen-minutes-of-fame thing, and WP is terrible at dealing with that concept. We even know we are, but we don't do anything to fix it.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:50, 19 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. No prejudice to a redirect. If anyone wants, I can restore the content to a draft (let me know on my talk), but it definitely shouldn't go back in mainspace as-is. ansh666 07:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Universal religion[edit]

Universal religion (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)

Complete synthesis article, with absolutely no in-depth coverage of the subject. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - We've already had this discussion with Universalizing religion. I don't see why the previous AfD and RFC at Talk:Universalizing religion#Merge to Cornelis Tiele. I'm especially concerned that User:Realphi is continuing the squander the second chance given by User:Dlohcierekim by persisting in the same tendentious editing that was a part of the behavior that resulting in previous blocks. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 05:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 05:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 05:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 05:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 05:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 05:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is surely an important subject for Religious Studies students. Vorbee (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Per WP:POVFORK. Among issues, atheism is listed as a religion with unsubstantiated claims like "affirms free will". Reality is more complex than that, although it's out of the scope of this page. —PaleoNeonate – 07:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cornelis Tiele#Universal religions per WP:POVFORK. Warn user (again?) regarding edit warring. Polyamorph (talk) 08:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:POVFORK and the original nomination WP:SYNTH. As mentioned above this is an attempt by a single author to circumvent consensus giving undue weigh to a confused and minor term.PRehse (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, both this article as well as the proposed redirect at Cornelis Tiele#Universal religions contain mostly original research. I have checked a few sources in both articles, and none of them even mention the term universal or universalizing religion.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 10:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is no shortage of ones that do. Johnbod (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody look at that range of titles... What? It's in the 5 Steps to a 5 AP series?!? I don't know why that shocks me so much. —Geekdiva (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - 1. Important subject 2. There is an article for ethnic religion, its opposite and universalism, its rival 3. Article too big compared to size of Cornelis Tiele page. Realphi (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks all a bit forky to me, and maybe some OR thrown in.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This is largely about the theory of one scholar. If kept it should be renamed to Universalizing religion, which is a better name. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This basic work suggests it has gone well beyond that by now. Johnbod (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, that's a Routledge book! I ~love~ that publisher! Ahem, the first result in Johnbod's search given way above is The Complete Idiot's Guide to Geography - Page 22 "Geographers classify religions into two primary types: A universalizing religion is open to all human beings and attempts to spread its faith ... An ethnic religion generally encompasses specific groups of people in a particular location on earth. [And then lists various well-known religions and contrasts and compares them with these terms]." —Geekdiva (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but fully rewrite per Johnbod's arguments and sources. Currently, definitely OR, but subject appears to be a notable theoretical framework. Might have to be stubbed for the time being.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep or Redo-ify with conditions if that's a thing – Following up on my comment just above, the current and historical use of the title & topic term should be what this article should be built on, even if the rest of the current text gets slashed away at some point like soon. Going by that, the term AND its stated opposite are used in a range of books (thx J above | oh wait I mean the earthly J | oh wait) in a list starting with The Complete Idiot's Guide to Geography and including the previously-J'wikilinked The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion (later pls somebody n.b. for adding somewhere: the contrasting term being ethnic OR cultural religion in the latter ref). A quick glance seems to show increasing use since the mid-90s and lots of use near the intersection of Religion Way and Geography Circle.

If I were restructuring it (or wanted to give conditions), I'd focus on getting a range (comparative religion, geography, history of religion...dunno, maybe history of atheism but only if it follows the rest of this sentence) of references that *actually mention exactly "by name"* the title term plus any other topic terms that are bolded in the intro; let the refs do the synthesizing. Then I'd comment out or remove any existing refs that seem or are superfluous. I'd continue by describing the current, most wide-spread use(s) first, then give a historical overview, and lastly see what leftover parts don't fit anymore, should be/are already covered else-article, or make me realize there should be another (sub)section. After that, I'd redo the intro.

FWIW,

1. I mentally went from an obvious Delete to a cranky Keep and back and forth again with no time spent in the middle.
2. I only stumbled upon this discussion by extreme chance.
3. I only participated in this discussion to this extent because I saw Johnbod's points and read what J was pointing at (the initial initial letter being my preferred wikipronoun).
4. Finally and (at the last moment) remembering to discuss the behavior and not the person because the behavior might could change, I really, really, rillyrilly don't like some edit summary stuff in the page's history that pushes my personal Presbyterian buttons, SO you see I had to DRAG myself to a well-considered, why-am-I-here, independent-of-any-other-page Strong Keep. Sorry for the data dump, but I had to do what I could all at once and ~in full personality~ because I was already overdoing it and I won't be able to be back. Ps. OMG edit conflict. User talk:Farang Rak Tham, I think I got everything of yours in, but I am typing a lot and am tired to the inverse degree. And I agree. —Geekdiva (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but purge and rewrite (and thanks to those who took the trouble to follow my links above!). It seems certainly a widely-discussed concept, probably too much so to tie to Tiele, who died over a century ago. I think the lead pretty much as it is could be referenced; I'm dubious about the "characteristics" section, but maybe that and the table can be. Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT. The subject is notable, as User:Johnbod points out but the current article reads as a personal essay with references tagged on. A fresh article on the subject could be crafted along the lines of Ethnic religion explaining the term, usage, common category features and its (fuzzy) boundaries rather than be a platform for comparing universal religions as in the table included in the current article, which is pure synthesis. Abecedare (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : Wikipedia seems infested, of late, with papers pretending to be articles. The practice violates a host of Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTJOURNAL, WP:OR, and so on. Yet, such texts are the most difficult to exterminate because they impress editors with their sourcing and smooth language (they are papers, after all). I suggest we go at it with determination and disinfect the space. Takes about two seconds of WP:TNT. -The Gnome (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Too many uncited statements, make it seem like an essay WP:NOTESSAY. It either needs to be deleted or reduced to a stub, and restarted. Park3r (talk) 14:34, 20 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie Scantz[edit]

Donnie Scantz (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:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate any biographical details in reliable secondary sources.

As for his Grammy nominations, he is listed here, along with 10 other "Engineers/Mixers".

On Confessions (Usher album), he was credited as an engineer.

He was one of four producers of Out of Eden, which won a Dove Award, see [17].

This biography does not appear to meet the threshold of notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 18:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks in-depth coverage from reliable sources. The artist's Grammy nominations would have qualified him for an article if there were more sources describing the artist himself. Right now, the article is mostly a production discography because there are no such sources. Newslinger (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I’m not sure the importance of the Grammy nominations. While he does have an entry at grammy.com, his involvement in the nominated project (The track “Yeah” from Usher’s Album “Confessions”) is one of many hands who also received nominations for the same music. There are 15 people given “producer” credits (this subject not among them) for the album as a whole. For the “Yeah” song in particular, Jonathan ‘Lil Jon’ Smith is credited as the producer; this subject gets co-credit for producing the vocals. While that’s enough to be listed on the Grammy nomination, it’s really more of luck to be attached to someone else's larger contribution. As for other sources to determine notability, they are all just AllMusic/Discogs type lists of credits. The subject is obviously a competent working professional associated with many notable recording artists, but lacking additional significant third party recognition, he’s really just run-of-the-mill. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and general coverage Snowycats (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 20:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 20:35, 16 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 20:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shad Khan (anchor)[edit]

Shad Khan (anchor) (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:NACTOR and lacks coverage to meet WP:GNG Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete non-notable and article was cretaed by a blocked user. 49.145.244.119 (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article awaiting speedly deletion per G5. Snowycats (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the article is not eligible for WP:CSD#G5, because the creator was not evading a block when they created it. ansh666 22:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While I agree that is not a case of G5 but it clearly fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG which stand.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:27, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Schallmo[edit]

Daniel Schallmo (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)

We're Wikipedia, an encyclopedia. We publish articles about notable subjects that are referenced to significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. We're not LinkedIn or Xing where anyone can post their resume or CV. Vexations (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. No in-depth coverage from reliable sources found. Article is structured like a resume, and only cites CV-like websites. Newslinger (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. WP:RESUME issues. Snowycats (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. He's an academic. Some of his papers and books listed at Google Scholar have been widely cited, although possibly not enough to pass WP:NACADEMIC Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:PROF. XOR'easter (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article is a glorified CV that lacks proper RS.96.127.242.226 (talk) 19:30, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of games with OpenGL support[edit]

List of games with OpenGL support (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)

Same reason the DirectX lists were deleted. Indiscriminate list that should effectively list every game playable on Linux and OSX. Completely bonkers. TarkusAB^talk 20:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per outcome of the numerous comparable Direct X lists recently deleted at AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 00:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTCATALOGUE fail Snowycats (talk) 04:25, 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 20:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Flood[edit]

Jared Flood (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 page was speedily deleted recently on the proposal of Androsyn (talk · contribs). But it has survived for four years so I think it deserves a discussion here. My !vote is to say: delete: distinct lack of online references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote is delete, lack of references and general lack of notability. Androsyn (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete even if the gent has in-bubble notability, I'm afraid he does not appear notable enough for an article. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are nearly eight million worldwide users of handknitting's most popular website, Ravelry.com. How big does a bubble need to be for its community to deserve recognition on Wikipedia? For a subject of similar relevance with an unchallenged page, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norah_Gaughan K3tog —Preceding undated comment added 16:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC) *Delete Lol there's a difference between notability of a hobbyist community and that of a individual in it. This article reads like it was written by someone who knows him personally. I'd suggest and afd for that linked article too. Weak Delete I found a decent interview of him on a blog-type site, but all sorts of small business owners get some coverage but don't meet the criteria of being notable. Reywas92^Talk 19:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I checked newspapers.com, and there are a few mentions but only in passing. When he gets more substantive mentions, well, he may be Notable enough for an article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:53, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scalable Software[edit]

Scalable Software (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)

Highly promotional article about a company that doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree, not enough coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH at all. Snowycats (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. Article sources don't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. News results only show references to the generic term "scalable software." Newslinger (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. Probably meets WP:G11. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:39, 19 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 shipbuilders and shipyards. Clear consensus to redirect. In addition, the suggestion that List of shipbuilders and shipyards be turned into a table, live-sortable by various columns, seems like a good idea. Please continue to discuss a possible table conversion on the list's talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest shipyards in history[edit]

List of largest shipyards in history (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)

Citing WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR, this is a broad, noninclusive, shoddily-detailed, poorly-cited, low-quality article. I previously proposed the article for deletion, which the page creator abruptly reverted- I subsequently showed good faith by not pressing the issue further, with the caveat that the page would be enhanced. Unfortunately, this has only been complied with by a grain of salt's extent. This list has been around for eleven months, without any effort improve- nor clarification for its purpose- displayed. Therefore, I'm now nominating this list for deletion. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect – To List of shipbuilders and shipyards. They are already covered there which seems to be a well referenced and maintained list. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: I agree with Shoessss. = paul2520 (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator's comment: Per the above recommendations, I am content with seeing this redirected to List of shipbuilders and shipyards. This list on its own is just wasted, extraneous bandwidth. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Additionally, the list of shipyards list is overly long.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment – So in other words, you want keep a “List" for a "List" that has a “List”…To what purpose may I ask when a “Redirect” solves the problems? Again, just asking….may have missed something here. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proposing cleanup. Yes, it's not a well-constructed article, but the issue is the substance, which just isn't there... DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of substance is also what add is for, since this article is a stub and needs to be expanded. Wikipedia:Deletion to Quality Award anyone?--Prisencolin (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect -- There is no clear criterion for what is (and is not) included. The target List of shipbuilders and shipyards would be better being converted to a table in which dates of operation could be added, along with data on the number of shops built. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Hatton[edit]

Jen Hatton (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 can't find any reliable sources mentioning this person; the only sources I could find are from the Irish Mirror, an unreliable source. Thus, because we cannot confirm the information in this article, it should be deleted. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 17:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – At this time. Has not reached the level of inclusion for an encyclopedia at this point. Hopefully someday she achieves her goals. Just not there yet as shown here on a Google News search [18] ShoesssS ^Talk 18:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 18:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 18:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There isn't much information in the article, not enough, and the individual doesn't seem notable enough at this time. I would agree to delete. Henry ^TALK 18:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. On the latter (ENT), the only criteria (to support notability under "large fan base or significant cult following") is follower-count. I'm no expert on what constitutes a high number of YouTube subscribers, but 1000 subscribers is perhaps not a relatively "large fan base". On the former (GNG), while a few online news outlets have repackaged the subject's videos, there doesn't seem to be significant coverage on the subject herself. Repackaged self-published videos are not "independent of the subject" and not "significant coverage in reliable sources". In short: Firm delete. Guliolopez (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not appear notable, and the article is unreferenced and unencyclopedic. Looks like it's riddled with BLP vios too. Is it really realistic for her to be the daughter of Dustin the Turkey? Aspening (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't even slightly comply to WP:MOS and is frankly a terribly written article. IWI (chat) 23:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, yes please. I've removed most of the highly unlikely unsourced content for which I could not find any sources at all that backed it up, and I've also requested that the page be semi-protected due to persistent BLP violations. All that's left is a few sentences, and all I was able to find when looking for sources, besides profiles (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) was a tiny bit of coverage in non-reliable sources. Fails the notability guidelines.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Concur with nominator's assessment. Finnegas (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and general RS/notability. Snowycats (talk) 04:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per comments above. 344917661X (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and the WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC✉ 20:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the editors above me - No evidence of any notability, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:55, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 11:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dzhulbars[edit]

Dzhulbars (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 significant coverage per WP:NFO. Only trivial coverage and first two sources are the same paragraph of text. No sources on Russian Wikipedia. Was recently screened in Russia but I do not believe that meets the NFO criteria for notability. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 17:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 17:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 17:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 17:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: meets WP:NFILM, with plenty of sources in English:

• Propaganda State in Crisis: Soviet Ideology, Indoctrination, and ... https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0300159633 David Brandenberger - 2014: This discussion of the heroic in Soviet cinema would not be complete without a few words about one final film: 1935's Dzhulbars. This film narrates the story of an aging Central Asian patriarch, Sho—Murad, his granddaughter Peri, their ...

• Screening Soviet Nationalities: Kulturfilms from the Far North to ... https://books.google.com/books?isbn=178672040X Oksana Sarkisova - 2016: In 1935, Shneiderov returned to the Pamir to make the feature film Dzhulbars (1935). The film, an adventure drama about ...

• Russia and its Other(s) on Film: Screening Intercultural Dialogue https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0230582788 S. Hutchings - 2008: It refers directly back to the 'border films' of the 1930s, most explicitly to Vladimir Shneiderov's Dzhul'bars (1935), which the young children of the fort have been watching every day. At the end of Shneiderov's film, the brave and resourceful ...

Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:01, 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 redirect to Everest (Indian TV series). Sandstein 20:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simran Judge[edit]

Simran Judge (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. Both cited sources are based on interviews with the subject. Maproom (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON and there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect to Everest (Indian TV series), the relevent TV series. Individual is not yet notable per WP:NACTOR. --HunterM267 ^talk 17:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect as above. Fails WP:NACTOR; page was recently redirected to the Everest TV page which is probably the correct solution. Eagleash (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per the above comments, too soon and the actor is not independently notable. But plausible search term for the TV series. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:05, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zhao Quan Yin[edit]

Zhao Quan Yin (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 does not seem to meet WP:BIO. The only reference is not independent. The author removed twice the tags that questioned the subject's notability and asked for additional independent sources. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Appears to be a non-notable television presenter, can't find significant independent coverage (or even trivial mention) of the person when checking some Singaporean news sites. I can only find some trivial mentions in some websites e.g. [19][20]. Hzh (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG Snowycats (talk) 04:26, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Producer Dxxx[edit]

Producer Dxxx (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 YouTube channel. Minimal coverage for a single video as far as I can tell and based on GNews and the sources in the article. Fails WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. SoWhy 16:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 16:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 16:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GOLDENRULE. Accesscrawl (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:GOLDENRULE issues Snowycats (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:03, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From Sky and Soil[edit]

From Sky and Soil (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)

Short film which has no properly sourced claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, every film is not automatically entitled to an article just because it exists -- it needs to have a strong notability claim (such as award wins or nominations, or significant critical attention) that can be reliably sourced. But there's no such claim here except that the film exists -- and the only source being cited is its IMDb profile, which is not a reliable or notability-supporting source. Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - fails WP:NFILM and the WP:GNG for having no significant notability claims, and I was completely unable to find any references to the film beyond the IMDb profile. --HunterM267 ^talk 17:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG Snowycats (talk) 04:29, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alana Mansour[edit]

Alana Mansour (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 actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. WP:TOOSOON reddogsix (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR. Has only had 2 roles, a single episode in one series and a starring role in Terra Nova, a series that never made it past the first season, lasting less than 3 months before it was cancelled. WP:TOOSOON definitely applies here. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete she had a role in a very short lived TV seriest back when she was 9. Nothing even approaching notability since then. She may become notable, but it clearly has not occured yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:TOOSOON Snowycats (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and the WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC✉ 20:26, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Alan Sheffield[edit]

Michael Alan Sheffield (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 musician. Claims are pretty exaggerated and has no coverage. "billboardmusik" is a blog run by a random blogger and there is no coverage to be found. I'd say this is almost A11 worthy. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails to establish WP:N. Google search does not bring up any in-depth or non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability, either in the article or based on the results of a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication of notability. Google doesn't give us much. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:08, 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. Not a very good discussion - on one hand links to search results are not useful to prove notability (we want the actual sources), but on the other Kotaku and Polygon are clearly reliable sources per WP:VGRS. Sandstein 20:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trap Adventure 2[edit]

Trap Adventure 2 (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 created by a UPE sock in violation of WMF TOU/policy, A lot of user guides on how to beat levels but very little in the way to establish notability. Still seems questionable given the WP:UPE even if sources were to exist. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I was asked on my talk page to restore it (I've had a couple requests for Mayamaya articles since the ban) and I did on the basis that it had a few RSs; no opinion beyond that. --PresN 01:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I dunno, policy is pretty clear on this and I see little evidence this would meet inclusion criteria and in addition to that, it was requested by a sock. The request and restoration should be re-evaluated. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 02:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 05:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I see no reason to keep this? The whole developer doesn't even seem notable, one of their games even less so. Let them take it to Everipedia.. Alexis Jazz (talk) 07:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Generally, developers have a harder time in showing notability, and games are usually more notable than the studio they come from. There are some reliable sources as indicated in the article (Kotaku, Washington Post, Nerdist, Polygon, etc.) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm somewhere in the realm of keep and merge and redirect to Super Mario Bros.#Legacy given that sources do exist, though not many and not much in detail. There's maybe scope for a List of Super Mario Bros. clones that might be able to take as mergers from the various other games linked from #Legacy. --Izno (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not real fond of #Legacy approach. You must realize how many barely notable games draw influence from something as huge and iconic as Super Mario, right? There'd be lists of games 100 entries long if we gave a shoutout to every little rando game like this. Indifferent to the "clones" proposal - it'd be better, but I don't know if anyone's dedicated to creating that just so we have resolution on this particular article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm quite aware #Legacy can problematic for inspiring games, but I think a list of clones would be one way to deal with that since we already have the general legacy article (which is the series article). --Izno (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Izno: a Mario clones article is imho a better solution than individual articles for kind-of-but-not-really notable games like these that seem to be forgotten within weeks. It should probably not be called "clones" though (maybe "derivatives"?) and for a game to be on the list it would still need to meet some notability standards, like this game does, having several reliable secondary sources. Should also be limited to games that have some connection to Mario, this developer has many games that likely even infringe on Nintendo copyright, so it would likely qualify. It should not be a list of all sidescrolling platform games. Alexis Jazz (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because nobody here is noticing THE INSANE AMOUNT OF COVERAGE THIS GAME IS GETTING FROM RELIABLE SOURCES. This search is all the need to prove that. editorEهեইдအ😎 21:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NOTABILITY. article subjects need significant coverage per the policy. The only reliable sources that mention it are WaPo, Kotaku, and Polygon.(Both are blog posts, which are not reliable as a source per WP:RS.) R9tgokunks ⭕ 03:11, 16 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. An editorial solution involving merging and redirecting can possibly be found through more discussion. Sandstein 20:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation's goals[edit]

Organisation's goals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article begins as an absurd stating the obvious: "Organisation's goals means the goals of an organisation". The rest of the article summarises one author's theories about organisational roles but this gives undue weight to a single book. Remove that and you're left with the lead which is void of any useful content. Pichpich (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Concerning the definition, perhaps "tautological" was meant instead of "absurd". Sure, much of definition in this case can be guessed from the name, and thus the first sentence is mostly used to give internal links (although it should be noted that the definition is not actually "Organisation's goals means the goals of an organisation", but "Organisational goals – the goals that the organisation tries to achieve, intentions on which the organisation's decisions and actions are based.", which is also based on the source). I don't see what is supposed to be so bad about that. As for undue weight, first of all I am not quite sure what other view was not given due weight. It looks like it is possible to find some other articles (like [21], Ravi S. Achrol, Michael J. Etzel, "The Structure of Reseller Goals and Performance in Marketing Channels", "Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science", Vol. 31, No. 2, p. 146-163) that cite Mintzberg's opinion about organisational goals (concerning some point), even confirm it, but do not seem to give anything specific as a serious alternative to it. But if there is an alternative, I don't see why it can't be included. Speaking of which, I do not see how undue weight alone as such (even if present) is supposed to be a reason for deletion, since it can usually be corrected by giving other views due weight (complete removal of some view would be in order if the due weight was "zero", which hasn't been demonstrated here, at the very least), or somewhat mitigated by tagging. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With only a single author's point of view, this stops being an article and becomes an essay. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Pichpich (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Special:PermanentLink/847546457#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, part about personal essays says: "Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts).". But every single sentence in the article gives opinion of an expert (namely Mintzberg), not a single one relies on my own feelings on a subject. Likewise, it says "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information." - and the article does not publish my own thoughts, but Mintzberg's. And, of course, they are not new.

Likewise, Wikipedia:No original research (Special:PermanentLink/848168425) says: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.". That's what that part of "Wikipedia is not" is talking about. And, of course, sourced articles like this one do not contradict that policy.

For that matter, do you think the article would suddenly become suitable if it would get a new sentence like "Such concentration on achieving one goal has been confirmed for resellers." (with the reference I mentioned previously)? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Looks like no valid reason for deletion has been presented and after short discussion with nominator it doesn't look like some valid reason is still waiting in reserve. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• comment What I'm reading isn't about the subject per se; it's about some subset of Henry Mintzberg's organizational theories. I don't know how his ideas fit into the larger scheme of things, especially whether he is the originator/spokesman for one particular tradition/whatever of organizational theory, or whether there is one common set of ideas of which his are a component. But at any rate, what's written here needs to go somewhere else besides here, and I am leaning towards deleting this rather than having it redirect to the result of a merge. But I need someone who knows the field better to resolve this. Mangoe (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge selectively to Henry Mintzberg (which looks to have its own problems), then Redirect not to Mintzberg, but to mission statement, which is very near to what this page purports to be about (but is in fact about Mintzberg's ideas). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't articles Goal or Organization be better targets for redirection (should it be chosen)? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have a particularly strong opinion, but mission statement starts with the definition "A mission statement is a short statement of an organization's purpose, identifying the goal of its operations", which seems to combine "organization" and "goals" sufficient to make it my preferred target. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd say there's a significant difference: for example, Wikipedia can have goals like not letting some law to be passed, but the mission is just creation of an encyclopedia... Thus such a redirect might be misleading... Anyway, since you wrote "which is very near to what this page purports to be about (but is in fact about Mintzberg's ideas).", maybe you do know some alternative to those ideas? Random sources I have found (now listed in the article) do not seem to discuss any serious alternatives, but it would be interesting to find out about them, if they exist. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • For that matter, wouldn't those articles be better targets for merging as well (in case merging is chosen)? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 13:42, 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. Sandstein 20:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alley of Immortality (Taganrog)[edit]

Alley of Immortality (Taganrog) (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 war memorial. No significant coverage to be found, and the ru.wiki page from which this was translated also contains no useful sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, probably to List of monuments and memorials in Taganrog. [was Merge, tentatively]: This sounds interesting, as an unusual type of Category:World War II memorials in Russia, worth at least mentioning in a List of World War II memorials in Russia (currently a redlink) or List of World War II memorials in the Soviet Union (currently a redlink). There could/should be such a list-article as the subject is obviously valid, consistent with wp:CLN to complement the category. I would be willing to start the list-article as part of an outcome of this AFD. Have worked on similar others such as List of Mexican-American War memorials and monuments recently. However, maybe there are sources such that this should be an outright "Keep"; i haven't properly searched, myself. But outright "Delete" is not necessary. --Doncram (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's an awful lot of speculation on which to base the retention of this article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well i would be happy to do the list-article, but I would be happier about covering "Alley of Immortality" there if any sources about it were found. Taganrog itself is a very important historic tiny city, and it has a surprising number of important memorials (e.g. the only memorial to Alexander I in Russia, e.g. Checkhov birthplace memorial, memorial relating to Garibaldi living there, covered in large Commons category of photos of memorials in Taganrog) but this one is not covered at all in say this review of Taganrog. I am a bit afraid it is just one small school's little project. Let me say "Merge, tentatively" means if there is _some_ source about this Alley. --Doncram (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The monument of Vasiliy Nechitailo about another memorial in Taganrog where I suggest a list-article for landmarks, monuments and memorials in Taganrog or in Rostov Oblast as an alternative to deletion, either as a separate list-article or a section in Taganrog, say, and ask for productive discussion instead of more separate AFDs. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Admiralty Sloboda. --Doncram (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have started List of monuments and memorials in Taganrog and I changed my !vote to "redirect" from "merge" above. Without any source yet, I won't myself put any mention of this into the list-article, but the info could be copied to a section on its Talk page, asking readers to come forth with any sourcing if possible. "Redirect" is okay as an Alternative to deletion, and preserves option of restoring article if/when coverage/sources emerge. However, if the deletion nominator and/or closer strongly prefer to Delete, I don't terribly mind, but would still want to copy its info to the Talk page of the list-article that way. --Doncram (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I did copy content from this article to a section at Talk:List of monuments and memorials in Taganrog. I voted "Redirect" (to the list of monuments, which might in the future include some coverage of this if any sources show up) above and still think that would be okay/best, though it doesn't terribly matter. --Doncram (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: it's an active WW2 memorial and sufficiently notable landmark. There's a bit of coverage here: [22] about earth from more cities being added. I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A memorial like this in a major city would seem to just about climb over the notability bar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- as an unusual variety of war memorial, this is worth having. The alternative would be to Merge somewhere (not merely redirect). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 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. I find the delete arguments, particularly from Bearcat, to be much stronger than those arguing for keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas W.P. Slatin[edit]

Thomas W.P. Slatin (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:BLP of a writer and photographer, which makes no strong claim of notability under our inclusion standards for writers or photographers and cites no evidence of reliable source coverage to get him over WP:GNG. This literally just states that he exists and then includes a small amount of information about his childhood, but then just ends without saying even one thing about his career that could even be measured against our notability standards for that career -- and its references are all primary sources that do not support notability at all, such as his own self-published website, pieces of his own writing about other things, and the self-published website of a non-notable award that doesn't constitute a free notability pass -- and even the one thing that looks like a more reliable source on the surface (Broadway World) is actually still a press release. As always, Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform on which every creative professional is automatically entitled to have a profile just because he exists -- but neither the content nor the sourcing here is suggesting any reason why he's notable enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. No evidence of notability whatsoever. Completely failing WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see updates since the preceding commentary on this page.. Thomas Slatin’s photography was published in a book which has received New York Times coverage. He is the son of Dr. Harvey L. Slatin. Dreamhost does have a stand alone company on Wikipedia, and that would make the company who offered the award « Dreamiest website of the year » notable. If an article stands on Wikipedia then that company passed notability, so I would think any award offered by a notable company would be of significance and establish notability for the award being notable in addition to the recipients. His writings are published. New York Times and many others found the book in which his photography is mentioned, worthy of coverage, and having ones photography appear in a notable book which has received tremendous media coverage goes beyond a trivial mention. Book illustrations are a significant part of books (of course). Also in the book which received New York Times reviee coverage, his photography is published, not just mentioned. Wouldn’t that assist in satisfying notability requirements in terms of his photography work having been published in a book which is repoed by a major book distributor with major, credible media source coverage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideaanalyst (talk • contribs)

Firstly, the notability or non-notability of an award is not a question of "the organization or company that presents the award has a Wikipedia article about it as an organization or company" — it is a question of "media independent of the organization's own self-published website pay direct attention to the granting of the award as news in its own right". An Academy Award confers notability on an actor or actress because media report the Academy Awards as news, not just because the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences happens to have a Wikipedia article, and a Pulitzer Prize confers notability on a writer because media report the Pulitzer as news, not just because the Pulitzer Prize has a website. There are lots of other small-fry awards that actors or writers can win that are not notable enough, or covered by the media enough, to make a writer or actor notable for winning them — not every award that exists constitutes a notability freebie in and of itself, because the notability test for winning an award is the depth and range of media coverage that is or is not devoted to reporting the granting of that award as news.

Secondly, notability is not inherited. The identity of his father is irrelevant either way to the question of notability: if a person does not have a strong or properly sourced notability claim in his own right for his own standalone accomplishments, then he does not earn an inclusion freebie just for having a notable father.

And thirdly, having his work appear in a book that got reviewed by the media is not a notability criterion either — people do not get inclusion freebies just for having their work appear in anthologies or as illustrations in other people's books, people get Wikipedia articles by having their work personally singled out for dedicated media attention about their work itself. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand the notability is not inheirited. In his work as a writer, he has been published (not self published in these cases) in currentphotographer.com, photographytricks.com, emulsive.com, among a couple others and those are sites who published his work as a writer due to his expertise as a master photographer, not self published sites. His photography work is sold through canva.com. In regards to dreamhost, it is an award winning platform to which I believe I read 600,000 websites/blogs exist. Dreamhost is a highly viewed platform and they published the news of their winners each year, being one site of a handful who won in 2016, only one winner for Dreamiest website and announced on dreamhost (placing higher than thousands of sites) that seems notable. I understand each element in itself may not represent notability but as for all deemed relevant and notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, it is looking at the full picture of combined sources:achievements correct? A published writer (in aforementioned sites), published photographer and the award where there are hundreds of thousands of sites belonging to the Dreamhost website so winning Dreamiest site, comprised with his other achievements in publishing and maintaining neutrality it represents significance and a unique collective set of achievements which are measureable/tangible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideaanalyst (talk • contribs) 04:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – At this time. Just not over the bar yet with regards to being “encyclopedia” notable. Not enough coverage. In fact really none from secondary – independent – reliable source. Do hope to read about him here someday. But just has not received the recognition yet to be included.ShoesssS ^Talk 15:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This person has accomplished more than many who have been granted formal recognition in the press. For this reason alone, their accomplishments far outweigh the fact that there has not yet been a press mention, when clearly there should have been by this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:110D:43FB:E9D2:9393:2BC2:4F1C (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, there's no such thing on Wikipedia as "notable despite the lack of a press mention" — press coverage is the definition of notability, so it's inherently impossible for a person who doesn't have it to be more notable than a person who does. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 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. Can be userfied via WP:REFUND on request. Sandstein 20:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive Information Processing (CIP) Shell[edit]

Cognitive Information Processing (CIP) Shell (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)

Specific application that is covered in at least some detail in exactly one source - the first one given in the article [23]. Everything else is passing mentions at best. This may be used to some extend but it clearly isn't widely covered. Appears to fail applicable notability guidelines, optimistically due to WP:TOOSOON. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognitive Information Processing. There seems to be a problem with encyclopedic treatment of the area. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP is not an advertising site. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Draftspace to allow the editor a chance to add some sources, and do an WP:NPOV rewrite. Right now, it has terrible grammar, it is written like a promotion, and the main editor seems like a single purpose account (with questionable activities). It would be irresponsible to allow this article to remain in mainspace. -Henry ^TALK 03:09, 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. Consensus is that the company does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SiteWorks[edit]

SiteWorks (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:NCORP Vexations (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - fails WP:NCORP and is currently written entirely like WP:PROMO. The two references include a trivial mention in a "top 100" list, and the company's trademark entry. I was unable to produce any additional WP:RS mentions, including from large organizations they contracted for. --HunterM267 ^talk 17:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NCORP Snowycats (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with above, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 13:32, 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. Consensus is that this corporate group does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talent Inc.[edit]

Talent Inc. (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:NCORP none of the sources even mention the subject, except http://www.hiredaily.com/talent-inc-acquires-rezbiz-forming-the-largest-resume-writing-service-in-the-country/ which points to https://www.marketwatch.com/story/talent-inc-acquires-rezbiz-forming-the-largest-resume-writing-service-in-the-country-2014-07-09 and https://www.talentinc.com/press_2015-01-20. Both are press releases. Vexations (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]