< 29 May	31 May >

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Moor[edit]

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

I am unconvinced that the subject has attracted sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable makeup artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and is promotional. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:04, 2 June 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, default to keep.. Steve Smith (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alterra Mountain Company[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Only a few months since the previous AFD, there is still nothing to indicate WP:NCORP is met. SmartSE (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging previous participants: @DGG, BrandonALF, HighKing, and K.e.coffman: SmartSE (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have had achange of opinion since my earlier nomination. This is essentially a list of notable resorts belonging to one large company, and useful as such. Useful is an adequate reason for a lsit. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fair enough to have a change of opinion, DGG, but can you provide two references that support a Keep !vote? HighKing⁺⁺ 09:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a list, the refs are in the constitutent articles: just retitle in List of Alterra resorts. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Here at Wikipedia, we don't rely on editors' opinions. For Companies and Organizations, we require a minimum of two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Also, Notability is not inherited. While this is a holding company for individual ski resorts (and perhaps a proportion of those may individually be notable) it does not appear to be notable in its own right. There are no references that, in my opinion, meet the criteria for establishing notability and therefore this recreated article must, once again, be deleted. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also note that the article creator, DA201, recreated this topic 1 week after the previous version of the article was deleted, notably has a total of 19 edits all related to editing articles on the individual ski resorts linked to Alterra. For a new account though, the editor displays a remarkable proficiency with Wikipedia editing styles and standards. Leaving aside the swift ignoring of the result of the previous AfD, it is pretty obvious that the account is an SPA, likely has a COI and is connected with Alterra and may be a paid editor. Doing run-arounds on Wikipedia decisions should not be rewarded in my opinion. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing, especially "notability is not inherited." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the one who created the page. I do not work for the company at hand or any company in the industry, but thought the page should exist as a page exists for its direct competitor Vail Resorts. DA201 ( talk ) 00:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep due to its ownership of a large portfolio of notable assets. The article is useful to tie them together. The sources will come, it is a stub and these resorts always generate controversy so in time the sources will materialize. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG and Jtbobwaysf, having a list of this sort is very useful. Also, the Denver Post ([1] and SkiMagazine ([2]) articles (at a minimum) meet WP:NCORP, so Alterra appears to meet the requirements for keeping on that basis as well.-Mparrault (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This list is made up of notable resorts. -- Dane ^talk 04:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not inherited. While the content might stand alone as an article of list, the subject doesn't. Per WP:ARTN, content doesn't make subject notability. Having a list of a notable resorts doesn't make the company owning them notable. And my brief search on Google and a few business related sources doesn't yield significant coverage of the subject. Xinbenlv (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: works as WP:LISTN as all resorts are independently notable. An overview article, with brief info on the corporate parent, is appropriate. Could possibly be moved to "List of ..." article, but this could be decided on the article's Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment K.e.coffman, can you take another look? LISTN states that the "notability of lists is based on the group". The "group" suggested in this article is the parent company, Alterra Mountain Company. Yet the parent company isn't notable in its own right and NOTINHERITED applies. This is a case where the parent company is attempting to derive notability from the resorts in the list (again NOTINHERITED) and therefore is the opposite of LISTN. I have no objection to the resorts being included in List of ski areas and resorts in the United States. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not just for the notable properties, but the newly formed company itself has started to get some coverage. In addition to that mentioned above, Chicago Tribune [[3]], Aspen Times [[4]] and USA Today. [[5]]. Passes WP:GNG TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:16, 6 June 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matty Cranmer[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:GNG. He is the brother of a notable BMX rider, but that should be irrelevant per WP:BIORELATED. -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable cyclist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability in the article and no sources found in a Google search that would support a claim. Alansohn (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 04:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:59, 6 June 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 Southern Indoor Football League. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Kings[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG with only one local independent source reporting anything, and it is all WP:NOTNEWS-style announcements. With no WP:SUSTAINED coverage due to only playing one away game, which would be a single WP:ROUTINE mention at best, this fails WP:NORG and WP:SPORTS presumptions of notability. Redirect would not be very helpful as the the only thing that links here is the league itself and its nav template, which this would redirect back to the league page. It is not substantially different than what was deleted before, just has two more sentences with the local cite. Absolutely no different than any other low-level non-media covered indoor football team (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Carolina Ravens, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Wild, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New England Cavalry, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savannah Coastal Outlaws, etc.). Yosemiter (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My vote would be to merge the information onto the Southern Indoor Football League page. I've already copied over all relevant information, though, so we can safely delete (or redirect?) this article. SportingFlyer talk 23:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing particularly wrong with making it a redirect, it just wouldn't be used as far as I can tell. At best, it never gets used other than where I already mentioned it is linked (the league page where it would redirect and the nav template for the league). At worst, it could create a complication if there someday becomes another Florida Kings subject that needs the title space. Yosemiter (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree - just suggesting a redirect as a possibility. I don't think it's going to be anything anyone cares much about. SportingFlyer talk 01:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Southern Indoor Football League. Since the text of the article has been copied over to the linked page, we need to preserve the history of the current article for copyright purposes. More generally, I agree that this article does not meet notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Hills Mall[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dubai Hills Estate. The closer noted that the arguments for keeping were mostly WP:ITEXISTS and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. However, there is one problem with the former keep arguments. It doesn't exist yet.

Nothing in the article suggests any particular notability other than that it will exist. There is no in-depth discussion, e.g., of its intended economic importance, of its environmental impact, of any features that will be unique in the world, or whatever. In the absence of in-depth discussion of some sort, articles on planned malls are promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep On reading the nomination statement I was prepared to opt for "delete" but I checked the sources first (I also combined some duplicate sources) I see that the article states, supported by a siurce, that this will be the largest mall in he world measured by total area, and the source also says that it will be the 6th largest by Gross Leasable Area (GLA). That seems significant, and it looks to me as if there are enough source to pass the GNG. Projects in progress are not barred by WP:CRYSTAL provided that there is reliable coverage. My only doubt is of the independence of the sources, some of which sound as if they are based in significant degree on press releases. Sourced in-depth discussion such as Robert McClenon calls for would surely improve the article, but I don't see it as a requirement for the article to exist. If it were we would have very few stubs indeed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is not written as an advert it accurately describes one of the largest malls in the world under development. It is not some little strip mall like a million others. Such major developments are of encyclopedic interest. Major reliable sources cover this, yes using company released data as a source of course, but they cover it because it is a really big project of interest to the mews reading general public and hence of interest to our readers because this is not routine news but something long term. This topic is a hell of a lot more notable than some forgotten handball player that once was in the Olympics or other such pages that get autopasses. Legacypac (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep: coverage shows this is a massive mall, and notability also shown via coverage.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This, inexplicably perhaps, seems to just pass muster for GNG. Chetsford (talk) 05:45, 6 June 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, default to keep. Steve Smith (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brothers von Blücher[edit]

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

The article fails WP:SOLDIER. As only one of the brothers received a Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, it would make more sense to write an article about him and insert the information there. Alas Iron Cross recipients are redirected at this point. The author of the article is indefinitely blocked for copyright violations. Catlemur (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on account of subject meeting WP:NSOLDIER. The three persons that are the subject of the contested article were among the dead from the German side during the 1941 invasion of Crete. On that basis alone they do not merit an article but the fact of three brothers being killed in the same military operation within days of each other makes the subject evidently notable. They cannot be considered, on the basis of evidence, as independently notable but as a group, as brothers, they certainly are. Read: Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign and I consider three brothers dying in the same battle together as having played an "important role" in it. Moreover: It is important to note that a person who does not meet the criteria mention above is not necessarily non-notable. Even if the specific criteria listed in WP:NSOLDIER do not strictly accord notability per se, we must acknowledge the inherent notability of the subject, per above. (We cannot and I will not invoke articles of similar themes that already exist.)

About the indefinite banning of the creator of the article: That should be of no concern at all. Creators never own the text anyway.

And, yes, the text, as a whole, is a bit slanted towards admiration for its subject. But this is easily fixed. And it's clumsily written; even the name of the city near which they died is spelled in various ways in the text. This, too, can be easily fixed. -The Gnome (talk) 09:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Non-valid deletion rational. SOLDIER only creates a presumption of notability - it does not preclude notability - should we delete the Sullivan brothers as well? If we had a standalone article for one of them, a merge might've been in the offing. However, as a set, they are notable as are discussed, e.g. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13].Icewhiz (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:SOLDIER is irrelevant. The problem with these sorts of guidelines is that people tend to forget that they don't actually decide whether an article is notable or not. They are merely a presumption that, if a topic meets certain criteria, they are likely to be notable. Which is to say, WP:GNG is what actually determines whether a topic is notable or not. There are individuals who do not meet SOLDIER but are certainly notable (Doris Miller is an obvious example), and conversely, those who do pass SOLDIER but aren't notable (witness the numerous Knight's Cross recipients that have been redirected over the years). Are there sources that cover these brothers in detail? If yes, then the topic is notable; if no, then it's not, regardless of whether the topic meets SOLDIER or not (I don't know in this case, I haven't looked). It's a simple question. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only strong source I found with significant coverage is this Welt.de article: [14]. The sources this article offers cannot be verified. At any rate, this is some brazen German/Nazi WWII romanticism and a quality article about these three—should it be possible to construct one—might well be restyled as that of a popular culture tall tale. There is a whole paragraph explaining the exploits and honors of the famous Von Blücher in a footnote..."He is honoured with a bust in the German Walhalla temple near Regensburg. The honorary citizen of Berlin, Hamburg and Rostock bore the nickname "Marschall Vorwärts" ("Marshal Forwards") because of his approach to warfare." Give me a break this article isn't even about him. Then we get to the actual brothers...under a section entitled Drama...it's like the article is making fun of itself. "The talented equestrian almost reached his brother's position, and in fact was shot before his brother's very eyes". How so tragic, so much wasted talent and right before his brother's very eyes. And then the brother was "hopelessly surrounded". Well good because I just ran out of hope for this article two sentences ago. Excuse me while I get my red pen and NPOV book and proceed to edit the crap out of this Wehrmacht press release. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sources listed above are in passing and / or unreliable. This is a poorly sourced propaganda legend; does not meet WP:NFRINGE either. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while there is a mention to a book by Beevor, Antony in "Further reading", there is no cite to it as to the subject of the article. Reading what is presented is trivial in nature and does not pass GNG for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at the links Icewhiz has provided, they are mentioned substantially in both Antill and Beevor, neither of whom are sympathetic to Nazis and who would thus qualify as WP:RS. The Nisbett book seems to be romanticizing, but the article is actually based on information in Antill and Beevor. Given their mention in a Hitler speech, these brothers would seem to be a similar cause to the Sullivans (not suggesting any moral equivalency), and meet WP:GNG as a result of the mentions in Antill and Beevor. Kges1901 (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The Gnome, Icewhiz, and Kges1901. Appears to be a similar case to the Sullivan brothers and the Niland brothers, albeit on the other side. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:19, 4 June 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. Enigma^msg 20:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Bial[edit]

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

Fails to pass GNG. A line or two in Posse Foundation would suffice. Zigzig20s (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete delivering a commencement speech is not in and of itself a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A MacArthur "Genius" award, as documented e.g. in the New York Times [15], is automatic notability regardless of how many commencement speeches she has also delivered. (And even though the coverage of her in that NYT article is only in-passing, there is plenty of in-depth coverage elsewhere). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not mention that in Posse Foundation?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It can also be mentioned in the article on the foundation; that's not the point. The point is that it makes her independently notable. Put it this way: in the 20-year range from 1991 to 2011, all MacArthur winners have articles (and there are only scattered exceptions before and after). What quality do you think singles her out as the one winner who is somehow not deserving of an article? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a MacArthur "Genius" award meets WP:ANYBIO; this is a significant honour. Also, Google books preview gives sufficient indication of her research activities having been noted by independent sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not sure what policy guideline editors are pointing to when they say, a MacArthur "Genius" award meets WP:ANYBIO. 20-30 awards a year? Borderline at best, regardless of the WP:OSE arguments. Without that, clearly not notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh no, the knee-jerk "delete, just not notable" enthusiasts are here in force now. Have you even read the article we're discussing? Perhaps you could say something substantive about its content, rather than merely responding to what you think it must be like based only on what previous discussion participants have said? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein and K.e.coffman. A MacArthur is more than enough. XOR'easter (talk) 04:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above, agree that the MacArthur "Genius" award gives her notability, as well as the media coverage she has had. Million_Moments (talk) 06:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above as well. Genius grant is significant Misterpottery (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/Snow Keep. Clearly passes both WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Several notable awards mentioned in the article (quite apart from the MacArthur award which alone would have already been sufficient), several honorary degrees, etc. No need to go further. Nsk92 (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep founded a notable organization, won a notable award, sufficient referencing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein and K.e.coffman. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily meets WP:ANYBIO. -- Dane ^talk 04:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:ANYBIO. Miyagawa (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per WP:ANYBIO. gidonb (talk) 21:16, 3 June 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. Enigma^msg 20:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Rinaldi[edit]

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

Completely fails GNG as the only Google results about him are his official website and a NSFW interview. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 19:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and lack of any WP:RS, thus he badly fails WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing both WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Renewable energy in Oceania[edit]

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

No useful information, and no real content added since 2015, when the article was created. Yann (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak, provisional~~ keep. There seems to be a reasonable amount of information floating around in various places, and I've added the Australia article. I'm going to see if I can put something together. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is no valid reason given to delete, and there are reliable sources therein. Bearian (talk) 01:39, 3 June 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. Enigma^msg 20:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Heller[edit]

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

All of the article seems to be about the duo she's part of, 'Dresses'. The only thing that's about her is a gossip rumor she started about her more famous friend Melanie Martinez, which is already explained more extensively in her own article. Heller herself doesn't seem to be notable. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 19:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have run across another article that included a sexual assault allegation that only took place on social media with no reporting to the law enforcement authorities. According to the WP:BLP team, such things must be removed until there is corroborating evidence from the authorities and from reliable media sources. See also Talk:Dan Spitz. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Actually, minus the criminal allegation (see above) this could very well be transformed into an article on the band Dresses, which may have enough media notice for a stub article. But as is, this individual member of the band has nowhere near enough independent notability for an article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreeing with Northamerica1000.Melodies1917 (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable individual. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 23:16, 5 June 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 withdrawn. Article was moved to a more neutral term. Can revisit later if needed. (non-admin closure) ((u|zchrykng)) ^{T|C} 19:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth generation cyber security[edit]

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

It appears to be an invented term. All sources I have reviewed talk about "Fifth generation cyber attacks" not "Fifth generation cyber security" ((u|zchrykng)) ^{T|C} 19:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

both terms are used in the industry, but I have no problem changing it to read fifth generation cyber attacks instead. I plan to continue building the article and hope others will join in. Cindy (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that the only place I was able to find the exact phrase "Fifth generation cyber security" is in relation to Check Point, who you work for. ((u|zchrykng)) ^{T|C} 19:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no attachment to using the term cyber security. I renamed the article to the term referenced in the sources. Thank you for pointing that out. Cindy (talk) 19:56, 30 May 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 per WP:FOOTYN. If somebody from WikiProject Football could take this on and find good sources so as to help get it out of the Wikify backlog (I can't find any good info), it would be excellent! (non-admin closure) d ross (c · @) 18:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

S.C. Alba[edit]

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

Quite simply, the team does not appear to meet WP:N, and has a whole plethora of writing issues. A quick Google search grants no valuable information about the team, and the information provided on the page is primarily copied statistics. Vítor previously WP:PROD the page, which was promptly reverted by admin Fenix down. I think that's indicative this article requires a discussion. d ross (c · @) 18:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The club has played in the Portuguese Cup at least once, so passes WP:FOOTYN. Nzd (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nzd (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The club has played in the Portuguese Cup 56 times so is clearly noteworthy [16], so passes WP:FOOTYN. League Octopus 20:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page continues to have serious issues, but those can be solved and the team meets WP:FOOTYN.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable as above. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 10:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:FOOTYN 56 times over, as mentioned above. AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 16:37, 31 May 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. Enigma^msg 21:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

André LePage[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league hockey player who fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC) DJSasso (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN hockey player with such an unheralded and ephemeral career in the low minors forty years ago, that I wonder if there was a COI involved: I note that the subject is listed as being a "legal advisor," something that's of course in neither of the hockey stat sources presented. Ravenswing 22:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Flibirigit (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The PROD summed up the issue succinctly, it was deprodded without explanation.18abruce (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I still endorse deletion this one is not as cut and dry as I would like it to be. He does fall just three games short of Criterion 2 as a goaltender, though for some reason the IHL is not listed as one of the accepted leagues for that level, probably just an oversight as it was a comparable league to the AHL when it was in operation and we've used it in the past to confirm players. Deadman137 (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No oversight at all. The IHL was not a comparable league to the AHL in the mid-70s, not close; many of its teams and players were still just this side of semi-pro. The year LePage played his most games in the I, the only player on his team who ever saw significant NHL action was Hector Marini, and the only player in the league leaders who'd be familiar to the average hockey fan you'd never recognize if he hadn't had a certain gig in the winter of 1980, and he got that gig because the IIHF didn't think at the time that playing in the IHL jeopardized a player's amateur status. Ravenswing 01:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, now any doubts that I had about this review are gone. Deadman137 (talk) 05:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 02:09, 3 June 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. Enigma^msg 21:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sumita Sofat Hospital[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NHOSPITALS. CSD once for a G2 but I feel here is a better forum to decide clearly. Quek157 (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-No significant coverage — F R ⁺ 11:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. There might be a few more than 20 beds. Bearian (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 3 June 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 deleted per WP:G12. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cinemargentino[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about the news coverage pf the site? FloridaArmy (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not seeing enough coverage in reliable sources to meet notability guidelines for websites. PohranicniStraze (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this has been speedied as a unattributed translation. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#CIR_concerns:_Unknown_contributor123. Fish+Karate 10:08, 31 May 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Specific pump power[edit]

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

Can't find any sources for this, seems like a duplicate of Specific Fan Power Benboy00 (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As written it IS a tedious physics discussion that might make sense to certain scholars, and IS NOT a clear definition of the property that someone would expect to find in an encyclopedia. If we could re-write it as the second and not the first I think it would stay. I would assume notability unless it's a made up term. ChalkDrawings33 (talk) 06:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Found some academic sources (now included in article). A useful concept in it's field SpaceInnovader (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability clearly established with the sources found by SpaceInnovader. The next alternate grounds for deletion would be WP:NOTJOURNAL. It's a little science-heavy, but I have no knowledge of the field and there didn't seem anything in it too complicated. The initial paragraph is fairly clear as suggested. Finally, regarding being a duplicate of Specific fan power, the equation is not merely a substitute, and there is a substantial different usage. I think it is more than capable of being its own article - a merge might be possible, but is certainly not necessary and thus should not be an answer given here. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem for me is that it's basically identical to Specific fan power, but with the words relating to "fan" changed to "pump". Maybe it should be merged instead? Benboy00 (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I considered mooting that, but the sources give significant distinct consideration for both. Additionally density and flow-efficiency considerations are different.

I'm not saying that you couldn't do a good joint article, but this article can stand on its own feet - therefore it shouldn't be the AfD that decides merging. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm very uncomfortable with a suggestion above to "delete" made on the basis of the text being "a tedious physics discussion that might make sense to certain scholars". Sorry but most scientific articles are bound to appear "tedious" and possibly mysterious to readers not familiar with the science. We certainly must make Wikipedia as readable as possible by as many people as possible, but, as Einstein (is supposed to have) said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -The Gnome (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. A technical article being intimidating might be an argument for revising it, but not for deleting it. XOR'easter (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per sources. That it's scientific is hardly a reason for deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources show notability. The lead makes the general concept somewhat clear. Beyond that it gets very technical, but it's a technical concept so that should be fine (see arguments per The Gnome). LittlePuppers (talk) 19:01, 6 June 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Lopez[edit]

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

Sacristy of information. Not a necessary Wikipedia article, should be in a draft. Lemonpasta (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not at present notable, may be in the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the person meets the notability requirements to be featured in an article. He is mentioned consistently over the past two years by various Colorado news networks and organizations. I found no issues sourcing information within the article, and enough work has been performed on the article to make it less of a stub. Deletion should be revisited in around a month from now after the primaries have occurred in Colorado. Computermichael (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's an important Hispanic politician in the West, he's already served as a mayor of an important Colorado city, and he's worked as an appointed federal government official. His name is a household word in the Rocky Mountain Region, and he's increasingly notable.Jeffrey Beall (talk) 10:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not well-sourced enough to get past WP:GNG, many of them are for his own campaign website. Being a mayor of a city doesn't grant him notability, either. Possible WP:TOOSOON, no prejudice on recreation if he wins the primary and independently passes WP:GNG then, but a pretty easy delete vote for now. SportingFlyer talk 20:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won yet — he would have to win the gubernatorial election, not just run in it, to be deemed notable under WP:NPOL #1, but being a mayor of a small town is not an automatic free pass over NPOL #2, either. The fact that some coverage exists in Colorado media in the campaign context is not a WP:GNG pass either, because every candidate in every election everywhere could always show some of that — campaign-related coverage only establishes notability in and of itself if it explodes to a degree that marks him out as a special case over and above most other candidates, but that's not what's in evidence here. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins, but nothing present here is already an article-clinching notability claim as of today. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete candidacy doe not confer notability. Career previous to candidacy insufficiently notable to pass WP:POL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:42, 4 June 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Links at Riverlakes Ranch[edit]

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

Not notable golf course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable golf course. Only secondary coverage is from the local newspaper and even that is promotional for the catering services versus the actual golf course itself. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability. Ifnord (talk) 18:26, 6 June 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Food & Friends[edit]

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

This is currently an advertisement for an organization that appears to have only received passing mentions in RS, falling short of WP:SIGCOV. Marquardtika (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Nomination. 344917661X (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete marginally notable, entirely promotional. Natureium (talk) 18:41, 2 June 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. Steve Smith (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MindView[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Little indication of notability. The article's sources appear superficially good but there isn't actually much there. There's a stack of reprints of press releases. TechWalls doesn't appears to be a particularly reliable source (mostly a repository for affiliate links, in fact). MatchWare are a member of the Business Disability Forum, so these sources are not independent. One applies for Digital Accessibility Centre accreditation, so that source exists not because of notability but because the manufacturer paid for it. What's left? PC Mag reviewed it; some chap on TechRepublic wrote a HOWTO. I don't feel this meets the standard of notability. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. The way the article is written isn't a reason to delete it, rather it's a reason to improve it. We have articles for notable subjects, and this is a notable subject based on the sources that are present. I didn't even need to check what else is out there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: In 2012, I determined that there weren't many good sources and that has clearly changed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cannot vote (revision note) Hello, I am sorry about the mess that I caused, I didn't realize that the news releases that I used were not independent. I added some new references to help with the lack of independent sources, but I am not sure if I added too many. I am still feeling out what is appropriate. Reriksenus (talk) 04:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can - well, no-one votes, but you are as free to comment on the deletion discussion as anyone. Don't forget that if you have a conflict of interest it is appropriate to mention it; especially, that paid editing must be disclosed. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Macworld, PC Mag and PC World look like good RS. Enough to estabilish notability. Pavlor (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is also one page short review in the German c't magazine 07/2013 (p. 65). Pavlor (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not convinced by this idea that short reviews in computer magazines suffice. By that metric, given the size of some of the big glossy ones, practically every individual model of hard drive released (say) would come to be notable. To me to stretches the idea that a mention is significant when it seems like the source might have more space to fill every month than material to put in it. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That ct magazine article looks like full page review (behind pay-wall, only thumbnail preview available). I also found this textbook [17] devoting nearly 10 pages to OpenMind (precursor of MindView). Pavlor (talk) 06:09, 1 June 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Discoveries of Arthur Grey[edit]

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

Not seeing much in the order of reliable sources, as places to buy the book, and the subject's own site are intrinsically not independent. A preliminary online search didn't unearth much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article could be merged with the article on V.K. Finnish, or else the article on V.K. Finnish could be merged with this article. Vorbee (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I'd typically agree, but I doubt even combining the two would meet the inclusion criteria. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A merge would seem to make sense if one of the articles somehow passes AFD. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like it fails WP:NBOOK. Basie (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources, in article refs or to be found. The author article should be deleted for the same reason, so merge and redirect are not good options. If this book series demonstrates notability in the future, we should have it back, but it just serves as advertising now. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:12, 7 June 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MatchWare[edit]

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

No independent sources (it's all either the company or reprints of their press releases), hence no indication of notability. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cannot vote (revision note) Hello, I am not sure if I am doing this right to comment on this page, but I found some external references for this article and added them. Is this any better? I understand that we're primarily concerned over the articles on the subject, but I thought it might help the article as a whole to have some different external links to the products. Reriksenus (talk) 03:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being the page's creator does not mean that you are not allowed to "vote" (it's not really a vote) or put in reasons why you think that the page should be kept. If you have some conflict of interest (if, for example, you do work for the subject), you can still give your input, but should also let us know your conflict of interest... and should be noting that in the creation of the article as well.

Having said that, the newly-added sources are either things that just let us know that the company exists (which was not really in doubt) or are reviews of specific pieces of software, which would lend to notability of the software but not do much for the notability of the company. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There seems to be enough reference to making it reliable. I don't think we should have just jumped to deletion so quickly on the article. You have to give editors time to work. That's why you have tags to add to it for improvements. Reb1981 (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Eh, no. All articles must meet the criteria for notability, otherwise editors can keep them in their draft spaces until they're ready. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if there is a deletion, it is entirely straightforward for the editor to request a recreation in draft space to get it ready for mainspace. No work will be lost. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment https://www.newswire.com/matchware-celebrates-its-20th-anniversary/238246 and https://www.bloomberg.com/profiles/companies/1037673D:US-matchware-incshows can show notibility. Reb1981 (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first of these is a press release; not independent. The second shows it exists; that is not in dispute. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the more people try to find sources that would indicate notability, the more it becomes dubious that such are out there. The press releases and databases just don't cut it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some searches including site:.dk searches did not bring about more sources. Plenty of mention of their different products, but WP:INHERITORG applies, and this still fails GNG/NCORP. Sam Sailor 10:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little or no non-PR coverage. Basie (talk) 00:30, 7 June 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MeetingBooster[edit]

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

Sources appear to be entirely from people who sell it, or simple reprints of press releases, so no real indication of notability. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. almost entirely based upon press releases and its own website,. Possibly G11 as essentially advertising. DGG ( talk ) 08:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 01:35, 3 June 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

V.K. Finnish[edit]

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

sigh Amazon, Worldcat, the subject's own site and a profile do not constitute independent coverage. I couldn't find much more in a preliminary search. I also suspect this spa's other article is of similar ilk. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 16:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And promotional. Her love of writing , is also an avid hiker and traveler and enjoys reading and recreating her characters out of LEGO mini figures. Sourcing is bad, as Amazon and her own site do not establish notability. Also, the first reference is very bad, as it is a promotional site where people are added on request. I would have declined it. -- » Shadowowl | talk 16:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)</noinclude>[reply]

Comment I have also nominated the author's other article for deletion. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Basie (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources, in article refs or to be found. It just serves as advertising. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:14, 7 June 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodia–Poland relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambodia–Poland relations, then recreated by a user now blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. As far as I remember, the new article is not much different from its previous incarnation. It's poorly researched and poorly sourced (that sources that are cited do not support what the article says). — Kpalion^(talk) 16:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly sourced. I do not see much in my BEFORE. Relations seems to be fairly limited for these quite far apart countries.Icewhiz (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Per above--I'm not seeing the significant coverage in reliable third-party source that is required to establish notability. Yilloslime (talk) 16:14, 5 June 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2006 TVB Anniversary Awards[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As per all the rest of the copy, this is in no way materially different from the rest. Past AFD closed as no consensus, discussed with closing admin, no opposition for immediate relist. For deletion reason: fails WP:GNG and one event. This is for consistency Quek157 (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case of no opposing votes, requesting a WP:SNOW close as delete as all the rest of the iterations, 2005 - 2017 had been deleted and extensively debated. --Quek157 (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It should be deleted like the rest, even if the guy nominating it got blocked. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 19:02, 30 May 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. The arguments for deletion have a more substantial weight in policy, particularly in pointing out that many of the citations on the page are primary, and many of the news sources are local and routine, therefore they don't contribute significantly to notability under the portion of N that requires substantial attention on a broad (usually taken to mean national) scale. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jan H. Gardner[edit]

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

County executive, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Rusf10 (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:GNG. She is the first female officeholder, inaugural officeholder, has distinguished career in business. Article is well sourced and adequately cited.Bangabandhu (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC) 22:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, she's the first female office holder because the position was just created. If the next person elected to the position is a man, does he automatically get an article too because he is the first male? All the sources are local and routine which does not pass WP:NPOL.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She is, however, the first to hold her position of elected county executive. While this does not grant automatic notability, it is true that being the "first" to an elected positions (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William W. Bennett) does contribute to notability for a politician. Presumably not least because it will be mentioned in future histories of that county.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you're saying is the first (fill in position) of anywhere is notable. So, for example if a new town of 100 people is established by succeeding from another town, its first mayor is notable? There are literally millions of firsts in world and just being first is not a reason for notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No "straw man" at all, E.M.Gregory. You wrote that the subject is "the first to hold her position of elected county executive" and that while "this does not grant automatic notability, it is true that being the first to an elected positions...does contribute to notability for a politician." This is patently untrue and all Rusf10 did was to point that out to you! It may apply in the world at large out there (e.g. in terms of a brief media cycle) but not for Wikipedia and its N-policy. If you think otherwise, I invite you to enlighten us it with chapter and verse. -The Gnome (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You distort my comment.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite difficult to "distort" your comments when I quote them verbatim.

The Gnome (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10's point is well taken. But, just for the record, "Clinton's loss sparks surge of interest in electing Md. women," Wiggins, Ovetta. The Washington Post; 11 Dec 2016: C.6. describes her as one of only 2 women who "hold the top elected post in the state's 24 main jurisdictions " My point is that she gets discussed in the press quite a lot and for a range of reasons.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks EMG! I wasn't going to reply because I thought a response would give such a silly comment way more weight than it deserved. Bangabandhu (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourced, good article, meets GNG. --Doncram (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Doncram (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]

Which sources are good in your opinion? SportingFlyer talk 07:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram has one of the broadest interpretations of GNG among the regular commentators at AfDs I see. I wouldn't read too much into their opinion as it is almost a default position: if it exists/lives/lived then let's have an article on it (I exaggerate, but not by much). In this instance, they're completely ignoring NPOLITICIAN. - Sitush (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - excuse my ignorance but can anyone give an equivalent to a county executive in other countries? I'm very slightly concerned that this might be creep towards articles about every head of every governmental body. Eg: I think we generally only accept mayors of particularly significant cities etc but, while I don't think this person is a mayor, we may be setting a precedent for a considerable broadening of scope. I don't think Doncram would disagree if I say that they and I often disagree about inclusionism/deletionism when it comes to this sort of thing. I also don't think that being a woman creates some sort of additional element of notability unless sources focus on that: indeed, I am absolutely fed up of gender being touted as a basis for some sort of dilution of notability requirements, regardless of which gender it may be. I'm also not seeing why "inaugural" anything counts - I could be the inaugural serial opposer at Wikipedia AfDs but would not in itself make me notable, merely (in this example) possibly a curmudgeon. No comment about the business side of things - that topic area is renowned for puffery, paid editing etc and I'm generally fairly poor at spotting it. The sourcing generally looks pretty poor - passing mentions in failed elections, non-independent, trivial etc. - Sitush (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Doncram makes a good point. With county executives and mayors of small to medium sized cities, the scope of Wikipedia has been getting quite large. But Gardner is just one of the many now. If we drop her from Wikipedia, we have to drop plenty of others, such as former Baltimore County Executive Kevin Kamenetz. So I vote to keep.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Folklore1 (talk • contribs) 9:53, May 23, 2018 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Folklore1 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

Fine, but who are you? -The Gnome (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On a point of information, we don't have to drop others - it's a question of individual notability here. Deb (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What point does Doncram make? Keep because it has sources and I like the article, so it meets WP:GNG? Your argument is based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From a cursory glance, Kevin Kamenetz would pass WP:GNG. Your analogy is flawed. SportingFlyer talk 07:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete County executives are just not defult notable, and we lack enough sourcing to show she is otherwise notable. I am now thinking I would support deleting our article on Warren Evans, unless people can find lots of coverage of him outside the Detroit Metro Area. The problem is that not only can I not explain what the equivalanet of a county executive is in another country, it is a hit and miss office in the United States. Some counties have instead a county mayor, some counties have a county judge (which in some places, such as Missouri, is an executive not a judicial office, a distinction that exists in the US but not in some other countries), and many places do not have one person who holds the top executive office. It might be somewhat like a sherrif in England, although I am not sure if they even still have sherrif's. In the US a sheirrif is only over law enforcement, he is basically the chief of police for a county, but unlike most city chiefs of police is normally elected directly by the people, as opposed to being an appointee of someone else. I only really understand the system in Michigan. In Michigan, we have 83 counties. Only 3 of them have a county executive. In the case of Oakland County, Michigan with over 1 million people L. Brookes Patterson is clearly notable. However he has been the dominate political force in Oakland County for about 40 years. In the case of macomb County, we have Mark Hackell who I derisively call King Hackell. He basically manipulated the situation to create the office so he could have it. Before that he was county sherriff, a position he essentially inherited from his father after his father went to prison for rape. I hate the nepositsm inherent in the system. Hackell has tried his best to destroy the closest thing he has to a political rival, James Fouts, mayor of our counties largest city, but creating fraudulent recordings of Fouts speech to smear him. This was in response to Fouts having exposed Hackell for breaking the law. In Wayne County Warren Evans is executive, however in most ways he is always playing second string to Detroit Mayor Michael Duggin. Detroit has over half the county population. One key factor is that the sherrif has little control over law enforcement, he runs the county jail, and in some counties his deputies are local police for most of the less developed areas. In Wayne County, the main local police funtion done by the sheirrif is policing Detroit City buses. However the county prosecutor, also directly elected, can serve as a counter balance to all political power misuse. Kym Worthy as county prosecutor in Wayne County was the key person in sending "King" Kwame Kilpatrick to jail. Well, ok, it was Kilpatrick's constant breaking of the law that sent him there, and it was his assaulting a police officer and adding insult to injury by telling the African-American police officer that she should be ashamed to have a partner named white (he was a white man as well), that just brought Kwame crashing down, not his perjury, although he is now serving federal corruption charges. Worthy probably handled enough notable cases back when she was asssitant prosecutor to be notable, but she has also handled several widely publicized cases as county prosecutor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment when an article quotes from a subject's person bio to say what they are most proud of, it is too dependet on the subject for information, and shows that the subject is not actually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yikes. She's a local county executive so needs to pass #2 in WP:NPOL or WP:GNG and she doesn't come close. There are 17 citations in the article. Seven are election results and can be discarded. Of the remaining ten, none are independently about her outside of the context of her campaign. One is for her own website, one is an opinion piece, one's a primary source from the state of Maryland, one's a four-sentence article on the winners of the seats on the council and mention more than just her, et cetera. The Washington Post is the best source in the entire article and it's an absolute WP:MILL article. Flagrantly terrible sourcing for a position which needs good sourcing to get past WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 07:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I feel like I don't know enough about American local politics to vote as to whether she's notable, but it does seem to me that the article is somewhat biased towards her achievements and needs a bit of NPOV improvement if it's going to stay. Deb (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Deb (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:NPOLITICIAN. The text contains interesting information but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -The Gnome (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I ran a search and added a little material on her political positions. She's anti-growth in a county where development appears to be the big issue, but there is a remarkable amount of coverage of her positions available in the Baltimore Sun, WaPo and other media. I only added a little. Mostly, I read enough to satisfy myself that this article could grow into a useful portrait of a county executive. Search tip: the same newspaper will sometimes use "Jan H. Gardner" and other times"Jan Gardner". E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I do not understand. The same could be said of every election candidate, every mayor of every town everywhere in the world etc. But we don't allow it. The US seems to be get away with stuff that just isn't accepted for the rest of the world. - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point well made. -The Gnome (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Quackslikeaduck (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]

Why?--Rusf10 (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gardner has received significant coverage. No original research is needed about the subject. Reliable sources, independent of the subject, exist. This article has not exhausted all such sources. The article could stand to be improved, yes. I realize my opinion on the matter disagrees with many other people who have posted on this page. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion and several recent and present discussions persuades me, as it has persuaded several editors commenting above, that too many editors are applying WP:NPOL without taking a close look at individual careers and available sources. Except with new pages on candidates actively running for office, I recommend tagging pages and leaving the tag in place for a year before taking politicians to AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE TO CLOSER-User:Bangabandhu has canvassed several of the above votes. I've tagged them.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP:CANVASS with greater care than you tag pages for deletion.

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:...On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:...Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article

Everyone I "canvassed" made an earlier, substantial contribution to the page. I am removing your tags. Bangabandhu (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial edits, right? Like these? [18][19] Or how about this? [20] The only person you could possibly claim that made a substantial edit is Quackslikeaduck. This is canvassing and you know it. Do not try to remove the templates again, the closing admin needs to see them.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a total of 11 editors and I notified all of them. Actually, I missed a couple of them and I'm going to notify them now. There's nothing biased in my notice. "Substantial" has nothing to do with the extent of the edit, I didn't look at what they had changed. I'm going to remove your tags. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10, I see no evidence of canvassing. The editor notified all editors who worked on the article in a neutral manner, and had no way of knowing whether they would support keeping the article. This is not canvassing. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is canvassing. You mean to tell me it is appropriate to send notifications to each person who made as much a correction of a spelling error? And there are ways to know whether some of these people support keeping the article. For example, Doncram votes keep on pretty much everything.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fact check Untrue. Here is Doncram's record: [21], Making false assertions is never helpful, but it is a particularly rude when done by an editor with Rusf10's case iVoting pattern at AfD [22], Rusf10 skews more heavily to "delete" than Doncram's does towards "keep".E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics check: Incorrect conclusion. The fact that user A votes more often to Keep and editor B to Delete proves almost nothing about bias. (1) It's very probable they're not voting on the same AfDs. (2) It's quite possible one tends to voice an opinion more when a case for Keep is strong rather than when there's a case for Delete, and vice versa (3) AfDs are processes that seemingly result more in deletion than in keeping, which means that a tendency to suggest Delete expresses a majority tendency.

Of course, it's a clear evidence of bias when a user has expressed openly their preferences about deleting or including articles that are in a grey area of notability. -The Gnome (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusf10: FYI—but such as Doncram votes keep on pretty much everything is verging towards the realm of WP:ASPERSIONS. Not saying you've shown your passport for entry to that realm yet (may WP:ASPERSIONS yet become a Republic!), just on the way with that remark. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 08:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about your background, Rusf10, but I have the suspicion you do not know much about random walks.

-The Gnome (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "County executive" is not a level of office that confers an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL on every person who holds it — it's a level of office that can get a person into Wikipedia if she can be referenced well enough to mark her out as a special case over and above most other county executives, but not a level where every county executive who exists automatically gets in the door. But this is not sourced well enough to make Jan Gardner a special case — it's referenced about 50 per cent to primary sources, such as her own self-published campaign website and raw tables of election results that are not evidence of notability in and of themselves, and the half that is media coverage is the purely local media coverage that's simply and routinely expected to exist for local county councillors. And no, being the first woman to hold an otherwise non-notable office does not confer an exemption from having to clear the same inclusion standards as any other county councillor, either. Bearcat (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: I struck through the canvassing suspicions. It's not just that this wasn't canvassing, it's also problematic that editors who came here with good faith to contribute to the discussion (and their votes fall on both sides) are now being discouraged, really accused. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Drmies. -The Gnome (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete county executive fails WP:POLOUTCOMES. While laudably sourced, all coverage is within context of elections to this non-POLOUTCOMES office and is, therefore, WP:ROUTINE for purposes of establishing notability. Chetsford (talk) 07:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the assessment above that this is WP:ROUTINE coverage for a local politician; the sourcing available fails to meet the requirements set by WP:ANYBIO—the most basic and fundamental criteria—that coverage of the subject must be both in-depth and persistent. This is neither. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 08:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor who takes the time to actually look at the page (WP:HEY it has been improved during this discussion,) will see that coverage of Gardner's political career began 20 years ago, and that her political positions have been getting INDEPTH coverage for 20 years. The county she runs is an outer suburb of Washington. It has a local newspaper Frederick News-Post, but her activities are covered INDEPTH (in stories about issues she works on , not profiles of her,) by two regional dailies, the Baltimore Sun and the Washington Post, sometimes these stories run in the general edition of these papers, more often in the regional edition covering suburban Maryland. The question at issue here is, Is regional coverage sufficient? It is pointless, and somewhat uncollegial, to make misrepresentations (such as asserting that "all coverage is within context of elections" or that it fails PERSISTENT,) or to argue that she doesn't get "an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL" after other, equally experienced editors have argued "Sourced, good article, meets GNG."E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through the new sources and I have to respectfully disagree with your argument here - first, Ms. Gardner has only been in office since 2014. Furthermore, all of the sourcing currently on the page only talks about her in the context of her local political career. Just because an article can be sourced doesn't make the sources significant. In this case, the best source is the Washington Post get-to-know-your-candidate, but not only is that article short, I'm sure they did it with all the important candidates running in the race, which doesn't make her special. The question isn't, is regional coverage sufficient? It would be if Ms. Gardner had been written about in multiple significant regional feature stories. Rather, the question being asked: is Ms. Gardner notable? All local politicians will at some point be covered in the press, and all of the non-primary sources here are exactly what you'd expect to see of a local politician who's simply doing their job. SportingFlyer talk 18:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fact check: She has been "in office" on the Board of Commissioners since 1998.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Even then, that has absolutely no bearing on notability. SportingFlyer talk 21:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree woth E.M. Gregory. Local politicans can be notable as the guidelines make clear of they've received substantial coverage in reliable independent sources beyond routine local coverage. That standard is clearly met. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)!vote by banned user--Rusf10 (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am seeing enough reliable coverage to meet WP:GNG. --RAN (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wonder on which policy or guideline do some folks base their assertions. Let us recall that a person can be mentioned extensively in the media but that on its own does not mean a Wikipedia article should be dedicated to them. Please consult WP:GNG again: 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. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Emphasis in the original text. That is why we have the many specific guidelines, i.e. about sports people, authors, actors, politicians, etc. -The Gnome (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that? I mean, can you demonstrate that this is why these guidelines were created? Because I had a different understanding of the reasons why such rules exist. This is, of course, not pertinent to the question at issue in this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that this issue has never been resolved on purpose. At wt:n there have been numerous discussions over the years about the definition of "presumed"[23], what conditions are necessary and/or sufficient,[24] etc. The recent discussion, Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 60#Promote to policy? touches on many of the issues, as did the discussion over the changes to NCORP and the more recent discussion Wikipedia talk:Notability#Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline? Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The foundations of Wikipedia are the five pillars, the first of which is the statement that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, with the emphatic caveat that this does not mean Wikipedia is to be used as a depository of indiscriminate information. As a social observer once said, everyone at one time or another shall have their fifteen minutes of fame. The very definition of notability makes it quite clear that this may not suffice as justification for an article. -The Gnome (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this well-sourced article per WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I moved the article per WP:COMMONNAME. See for example references in the article: always without a middle initial. For our discussion, adding the relevant search strings:

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

Note for the closing volunteer. Search string in nomination was not with the common name, possibly impacting the validity of nominator's WP:BEFORE (if any; there is no indication whatsoever that any work has been done to research the deletion), as well as all opinions above that favored deletion. gidonb (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

gidonb, I resent the accusation that "all opinions that favor Delete" have not done their homework. I know what I have done and I know I have done enough. I'd suggest that instead of being so emotionally involved you should calm down and proceed without personal commentary. It only derails and inhibits the dialogue; moreover, it does not help those who want to close the AfD. -The Gnome (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did a WP:BEFORE search. Google hits are not an indication of notability. How about you actually read some of the articles rather than just post links to search results? That is just as lazy as not doing a BEFORE search. Outside the local sources, which of those articles contain in-depth coverage? I see a bunch of articles about flooding that contain a quote from Gardner. The articles are about flooding, not her.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

lthough I do not see the sources about "flooding," there are a number of sources on the page in which her position and political activity on water supply in the county is discussed in the context of whether to permit residential development. As is her position on other issues. While some of these may include quotes, they are non-routine discussions of her positions within article about development battles and other issues.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The articles about flooding are literally at the top of the list. Anyway, its not important. The only thing I could find on water supply is this which contains 1 quote from her. Besides Dredging Today is not exactly the type of publication that can be used to establish notability. If you found anything other than that I bet its in the local newspaper which brings us back to routine coverage again which is not notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What? Ah. Now I see. You're talking about a gNews search. I was talking about the sources on the page. Mystery solved.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your previous response seemed to confuse the WP:GNG with WP:COMMONNAME. Maybe cause you were writing under my comment on the necessity of a name change that I have put into action and its possible impacts on the validity of the delete opinions above? In any case there is a huge difference between the GNG and COMMONNAME! gidonb (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: I have no objection to the name change. My point is whether I type "Jan Gardner" or "Jan H. Gardner", I am not seeing the sources necessary to pass WP:GNG. And you can stop being condescending towards me and the other people above you disagree with. As if we couldn't figure out that "Jan H. Gardner" and "Jan Gardner" were the same person until you pointed it out. The suggestion that the delete votes may not be valid for that reason is completely WP:UNCIVIL--Rusf10 (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In preparation of deletions one should thoroughly check for available sources. Moving to a common name also helps giving articles a fair shot and elevates discussions. After you move the article, the search string you provide helps finding relevant sources. Your repetitive use of the term "votes" for opinions throughout many county politician nominations and the continuous arguing strengthen the impression that you do not want this, fair shots. In fair shots, users aren't potentially (even without your intention) misled. That was my point. gidonb (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb:First of all, I've never heard of someone moving an article prior to nominating it for deletion. In fact doing so, would probably be met with criticism and rightly so. If I made any major change to the article before the nomination it would look like I was trying to sabotage the article. The article name was chosen by its creator, not me, so any criticism of the title should be directed at that person, not me. Moreover, your comments insult the intelligence of everyone involved with this discussion. I can't believe that someone would be "misled" because a person's middle initial is used. Those search links included in deletion discussions are rarely useful, it helps to do the search yourself without them (and I think most people here know that). Just a including a middle initial limits results, not including it can expand results to include other people with the same name. Perhaps a better search term would be "Jan Gardner" executive OR "Jan Gardner" Maryland. Most people can figure that out on their own, they don't need you to tell them middle initials may not be used in sources..--Rusf10 (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Local and routine are not synonyms. --RAN (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said they were. But local and routine are not antonyms, either — it is entirely possible for a source to be simultaneously both local and routine. (Frex, the purely expected reporting of municipal election results is not, in and of itself, evidence for the notability of an individual city councillor, and neither is an obituary or a wedding notice.) Bearcat (talk) 04:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some Keep opinions are based on arbitrary assertions rather than policy. It is perhaps necessary to revisit WP:NPOLITICIAN since folks often invoke it without specifying which of the criteria are met. Hey ho, let's go:

Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (state wide/province wide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature [are considered to be notable]. This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.

Also [considered to be notable are] major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.

Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.

Note here two things: (1) Just being an elected official does not guarantee notability and Wikipedia states this without any caveat about the official being the first in something, e.g. the first woman to hold that office, etc. (2) The part about the official being considered notable if they pass the "primary notability criterion", which is WP:GNG, is only considered if the politician already belongs to either category of the two, i.e. "international, etc" or "major figure."

What all this means is that if we have a politician holding (for example) an international office, we cannot assume notability just because of that! They have to meet WP:GNG as well! Our dear subject may meet GNG but does not belong in any of the categories laid out in WP:NPOLITICIAN. That's the policy, in black and white; and green. -The Gnome (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That strikes me as the opposite of what NPOLITICIAN says. In particular, NPOLITICIAN is a part of NBIO. BASIC comes before NPOLITICIAN, as does the note about all of the additional criteria (NPOL being one of the additional criteria) that: "A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC) Sorry, misread your comment. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to: "The part about the official being considered notable if they pass the "primary notability criterion", which is WP:GNG, is only considered if the politician already belongs to either category of the two, i.e. "international, etc" or "major figure.", where does it say in publshed wikipedia policy: "is only considered if the politician already belongs to either category"? Please provide links to let other editors verify the claim. ThanksDjflem (talk) 08:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm presenting the logical, deductive conclusion from the text of the policies, Djflem. Ask yourself: Why have all those subject-specific criteria if WP:GNG is enough? Why have WP:GNG if the subject-specific criteria are enough? The respective wordings make it very clear why. Because both criteria have to be met. My neighbor is an author of kids books and she gets a write up in the city newspaper almost every day (because she creates trouble everywhere she goes, etc) which means she meets WP:GNG; but she does not meet WP:NAUTHOR, so she does not get a Wikipedia article about herself. Now imagine that a person is a quite well known and hugely admired author among the literati, which means she does meet WP:NAUTHOR. Yet, she gets no significant mentions in the media, not even in the literary press. Ergo, she does not also meet WP:GNG. Result: as per previous. -The Gnome (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You might want to take a look also at this little discussion. -The Gnome (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that this interpretation, that both SNG and GNG need to be met to ensure suitability, is not the consensus on how the guidelines must be interpreted. At the recent discussion, Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Proposal to Change Notability for Politicians, various views were discussed and there was clearly no consensus in favor if this interpretation. One does not need to take an originalist position, but it should be noted that the first SNG that was a guideline was NMUSIC. One week into that SNG's existance, in January 2005, it was expressed that it was a "rule of thumb" meant to help users decide which bands should have pages, and was not meant to be necessary or sufficient. This was in the days when it was possible to write articles withour sources (for instance, this was the page about Ella Fitzgerald during that same week). NBIO introduced special cases for different types of professions in February 2007. At that time, something like GNG was the central criteria and the special criteria were explained as: "The above is the central criterion for inclusion. Below are some criteria that make it very likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given person. People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them." Again, there is no need to interpret the guidelines in any particular way, they are vague because there is consensus that leeway is allowable. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SatisfiesWikipedia:BASIC, which states: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability and People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below, One of the below, and thus additional, criteria being Wikipedia:POLITICIAN.Djflem (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almost half the references here are primary sources that don't assist in building notability at all — and the amount of reliable sourcing that's left over is not an unusual or unexpected volume of coverage for a county councillor to have in her own local media. If this is enough to make a county councillor notable, then it's automatically open season on every county councillor in North America getting a Wikipedia article too, because every county councillor can always show at least as much coverage as this. But we have an established consensus that county councillors are not automatically presumed notable just for existing, so a county councillor has to be shown as a special case, over and above most other county councillors, to qualify for an article on here — but the volume and range of coverage that's simply expected to exist for every county councillor everywhere is not enough to show that this particular county councillor is special. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of "unusual or unexpected volume of coverage" anywhere in published Wikipedia policy, is there? If so, please identify where (other than above) its location to other editors. Is the above additional criteria an addition to the already additional criteria, beyond basic criteria: "may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria"? (FYI: this article is about a county executive, not county councillor, which was mentioned 4x) Djflem (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "unusual or unexpected volume of coverage" does not have to be a verbatim cut and paste from a notability statement to still be true. Wikipedia does not accept county councillors as automatically notable just for existing, but local media coverage always exists for all county councillors — so if "media coverage exists" were all it took to exempt a county councillor from NPOL, then every county councillor would always be exempted from NPOL. The way to make a county councillor notable enough for inclusion is to show that he or she is significantly more notable than most other county councillors — which does require that the media coverage goes above and beyond what most other county councillors also have: much deeper coverage than usual (e.g. a full-on biography of her was published by a notable publishing house), much wider coverage than usual, and/or much more coverage than usual. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Djflem, with feeling: The key words in the text of WP:BASIC, are presumed and may. If a subject meets the basic criteria, it still may not make it onto an article! Yet, if it does meet the additional criteria, is triumphantly sails in. (The text does not put it this way exactly but that's the gist of it

) So, simply invoking BASIC does not go too far. Otherwise, we'd have a tsunami of notability and an article for every creature, construct, and idea under the sun. -The Gnome (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to "presumed" and "may"

Unambiguously, BASIC says: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." AND "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability."

It does not say that anyone or anything is "presumed notable" if there are no sources to back it up. (This article has sources/references which satisfy the requirement outlined above.)

BASIC continues:

"People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below." Please note, without additional criteria.

Again, no ambiguity. It does not say maybe. It says may be considered, which means: can be considered, are allowed to be considered, are permitted to be considered.Djflem (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The word "maybe" is the two words "may" and "be" joined together. The term X "may be" Y (e.g. John Smith may be notable) means that X might be Y but is not necessarily Y. It means, X is possibly Y or may become Y. That's an important difference.

A subject passing WP:BASIC as well as passing WP:GNG is not guaranteed to have an article in Wikipedia. And that is unambiguously stated, with emphasis too, in the policy text. Here 'tis: 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. And the text, not by accident, elaborates more on the presumption of notability so that it's crystal clear: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not. Guess what Wikipedia is not? It is not an indiscriminate depository of information.

It is first and foremost an encylopaedia.

Well, then, if BASIC and GNG do not give a pass, in and by themselves, to an article for inclusion in Wikipedia, then do we need something more as reasons for inclusion? Enter the additional criteria; and, as always, our good judgement. -The Gnome (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having finally got a grip on this, it strikes me that the arguments presented by Bearcat and The Gnome are those which are most policy-compliant. We have subject-specific guidelines for a reason and if we ignore them then the floodgates open, in this case for an article on every councillor and council official who has ever existed and garnered three mentions in local newspapers. There is nothing I can see that is extra-ordinary about this person other than perhaps being the first holder of an office (but then where would we draw the line on that criteria? the tenth? the fiftieth?). - Sitush (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She is a county executive and extra-ordinary (or special) is not a criteria, though being a first might qualify as that.Djflem (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. She fails NPOL, and, as I said, where would we draw the line on "firsts". Much of the sourcing is very poor. and whether you consider this in the context of being an out-and-out politician or a civil servant-type of role, it is not enough. - Sitush (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. --RAN (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain, RAN, why the "slippery slope" argument is a "logical fallacy"? As far as I know, it's a legitimate if often crude argument against initiating something. It may not carry much weight in a dialogue but there does not appear to be "logical fallacy" in it. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. - Sitush (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wow this is a trainwreck. Meets BASIC and GNG if not NPOL. Just want to note to the closing admin that Rusf10 should not have struck FloridaArmy's vote above, as the ban was only pot in place after the vote. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pass WP:NPOLITICIAN with just news reporting. This type of office has been shown to be considered non-notable. Just inundating an article with references does not prove notability. I am all for a !vote somewhere to get rid of all admins having only moderators, get rid of all policies and guidelines, and have articles on all things known to mankind, but this is not the place. Since we currently have policies, guidelines, and even accepted essays (along with admins) then either these policies and guidelines should be at least considered or a good reason to ignore all the "rules" given. Being in the news and newsworthy is not the same as being notable. Citing 25 references that include 2 dead links and a host of news reports does not advance notability. There are seven primary sources (six to Frederick County) and one admitted press release. There are six references to the Washington Post, three to the News-Post, two to the Frederick News, and one to the Baltimore Sun. Three are separate local reportings. I am just noting that of all the references (24 because I took one out and two are dead links) there are seven that can even be considered for notability. Six references are to mundane news like "New development on small lots would require costly expansions of the County's water and sewer systems.", the "hotly-debated" proposal to build a trash incinerator" that was scrapped, and that the subject will "not recommend raising taxes". How are we doing on the seven acceptable for notability references so far? Here is a slippery slope problem with this type of article: There are 3000 counties in the US, in 47 states, and 840 have this form of county government plus Louisiana has 64 parishes. Every single one of them will have a local newspaper, TV channel, or radio station giving the results of elections, news reportings leading up to a winner, and even some post election breaking news. This form of government is not rare just new to this geographical area. Is the claimed notability only because the subject is a woman? If this is true then why did it not make national news? I hate to mention this but as of the 2010 Census women outnumber men so this does not seem to be out of the ordinary in all but nine states. If we are attempting to add "all things in the world" to Wikipedia then lets change the "rules". If we count news reporting, and that she is a woman, we can conjure up notability. Being a "new" political division would be more appropriate on a county article. On the plus side we can agree to this article and open the door to around 900 more blue links. Corrections: 900+ because per user-Rusf10 the first male, then first African-American, first LGBT, etc... would qualify. This will bolster Wikipedia's article count, new stubs, and coverage statistics, but will likely not be enduringly notable pass the next election. Otr500 (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She certainly meets WP:BASIC. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You probably commented without reading what Otr500 wrote, e.g. "There are 3000 counties in the US, in 47 states, and 840 have this form of county government, plus Louisiana has 64 parishes." Otherwise, you would've understood that all the folks in them government agencies meet WP:BASIC. If you insist that the article be kept for the United States of America, then you're obliged to agree we do the same for all similar officials for every country under the sun or orbiting around it. Revisit. -The Gnome (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF; moreover, your assertion IS NOT TRUE. I know that many politicians fail WP:BASIC because they have NOT "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I know this because I regularly iVote to delete politicians in cases where such sourcing cannot be found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you clam that I do not assume good faith on your part (or on anyone else's part)? What's the basis of this sudden accusation? I repeat, most of the myriads of local pols and agency staff do meet WP:BASIC in some or other capacity. And that was the point being made by Otr500. I simply extended the logic behind using BASIC as a criterion in the case of government staff and politicians who (by the very nature of their job) are publicity seekers and local-media magnets. That's all. -The Gnome (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to point out that this is why I generally do not !vote on AfDs of living politicians and business executives (including this one). I think a good case could be made for their suitability for an encyclopedia article. However, local news sources may not be neutral, as the subject seek publicity and media sources seek stories. So if an individual gets only local coverage, the article may fail NPOV. I do not think that it necessarily does, as unless there is evidence of poor news practices, it is probably good to assume even local coverage can be neutral. But so long as the subject is living, I don't feel like this tension is clearly resolved in favor of neutrality. So I think NPOV/NOTPROMO is a valid concern and I do not feel it is necessary to !vote keep. Once an individual has died, NOTPROMO concerns are, to me, greatly reduced. I understand this does not solve the problem of the possibility of thousands of minor political figures getting pages, a problem I think is a feature and not a bug of BASIC/CCPOL. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikimedia suddenly running out of server space over text bits rather than image megabytes? This particular politician is so widely covered that she easily meets the GNG. Notwithstanding the attractiveness and drama of your "other stuff exists" argument and screaming bold format, each person should be reviewed on her or his own merits. gidonb (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

gidonb, I have never used lack of bandwidth in Wikipedia (!) as an argument in any discussion, and certainly not here. The issue is notability of politicians and government administrators based on the criteria invoked by some editors. To the point: E.M.Gregory stated the subject of the contested article meets WP:BASIC, as if that settles the matter, and as if by meeting WP:BASIC the subject does not need to cover WP:NPOLITICIAN as well.

This simplified (yea, simplistic) view in AfD discusions is getting annoying, hence the bold fonts. There are 3000 counties in the US, in 47 states, and 840 have the same form of county government as the subject's county, as Otr500 pointed out. In every one of them, all pols and admins have had their write ups in the media, to the extent of meeting WP:BASIC. But that alone is not evidence of Wikinotability. Reviewing the sources for the estimable subject of our article we find no more than the basic stuff. WP:POLITICIAN is not met. End of story. -The Gnome (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have over 3,000 images of kittens at Wikimedia Commons. If we delete 3 of them it will recover enough space for 3,000 text articles for the English Wikipedia on the Wikimedia Foundation servers in Florida. 4TB of storage is less than $100 now. --RAN (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You two guys are making a strawman. No one said the article should be deleted because of space constraints.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again the fallacious slippery slope argument. If we let one in, we have to let all in ... no one is arguing for wikipedia:inherent notability by virtue of their office. The argument is that this individual meets WP:GNG. The argument that the office has inherent notability can be made in the future. 5 years ago high schools had no inherent notability, now they do. 10 years ago all inhabited communities did not have inherent notability, now they do. --RAN (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fine description of "slippery slope", me thinks... --Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but it doesn't address why the slippery slope argument is being made here. No keep votes have discussed why this particular individual meets GNG, just that basic coverage is established - but this coverage is about the topic of the county as a whole, not about her. (As of now, no keep voters have said anything other than "meets WP:GNG" in their initial vote.) There is NO source here which talks about HER specifically as a person, nor is there any source which talks about HER outside the context of the role she does not pass WP:NPOL for. The slippery slope here would be interpreting GNG in a way we haven't done in order to keep this article, which would eventually allow county executives to become implicitly notable, because the sourcing in this article is that poor (in spite of the large number of sources). SportingFlyer talk 21:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

High schools do not have inherent notability. That entire issue is moot following the recent RfC concerning WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. What we're seeing here is an example of rampant inclusionism and, yes, the only slippery slope is the one SportingFlyer mentions. Unfortunately, the entire AfD process favours this type of filibustering because "no consensus" defaults to "keep". It is actually a contravention of WP:BURDEN and a real pain because it adds more maintenance for trivial benefit. - Sitush (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tangential remark : RAN claims that "5 years ago high schools had no inherent notability, now they do." I, for one, would be grateful if I could be directed to the Wikipedia text, chapter and verse, which resolves the issue of the presumed/alleged "inherent notability" of schools. As far as I know, no such resolve has been reached yet. If it had, that discussion would not degenerate into a wild saloon of strongly opposing viewpoints, with little regard to the policy on notability. We seem to be OK with violating the policy. But that does not make a new policy; it's malpractice. -The Gnome (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or very simply, Consensus through editing.Djflem (talk) 09:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When we have consensus editing that directly and explicitly violates extant policy, there are three choice paths ahead: (A) Stop violating policy; (B) Keep on merrily violating policy, which in effect lessens enforcement in all policies; or (C) Re-write policy to reflect consensus editing. You seem to be happy with B. -The Gnome (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why the slippery slope argument is being made? I wonder if some just see words and make comments. I can find 25 mundane everyday local news reports for about any person running for any office in the US. There is a push, that has been ongoing since I have been editing, that "if" there is a reliable reference (it doesn't matter about what or if passing mention) then there is justification for inclusion. I gave a detailed analysis of the provided references mentioned as "well sourced". This will be hard to argue against so we redirect and go in circles. That is sure to get a "no consensus" right? Six references about nothing but mundane crap does not advance notability nor does primary sources. There is a difference between well sourced for content and well sourced for notability but then most of us already know this yet some are arguing (I suppose) that there is an exception here. The comments that this opens a can of worms and creates a slippery slope is valid. The subject is a county executive that oversees daily county operations and has a "County Council" like a County commission, Board of supervisors, or a Police Jury (with a President) in Louisiana. Blue links have already been made on some of the commissioners on the Frederick County article using mundane everyday local reporting. This is just in the US so how many heads of county type governments worldwide will this open up, then the commissioner type positions and where will it stop? We have policies and guidelines so either trash them and let's have fun with chaos or consider that there is almost ALWAYS a cause and effect. The more I see that other stuff is not a good argument the more I see it exactly put out there.

Some attempt to allow Wikipedia to be inundated with pseudo biographies using sources that are about junk (look at my examples above) and stating the subject passes GNG. I am telling anyone here that I can find 25 local references on anyone running for office in the US and claim the same thing. That is the slippery slope and is as plain as day. IF that is allowed on a County Executive or a Police Jury President (and the residual adding of commissioner or jury members) using the same local sources that will provide 25 to 30 sources of the pre-, election, and post- results. In Louisiana, with the good-ole-boy system and corruption I can probably find even more. A million dollar cattle rustling ring (backwoods stuff right?) has been broken and there is likely ties to a police jury member or even a president. I know I can get several crap sources that mention a name or two for some new stub articles. A source that a drain has to be replaced, or an incinerator installed (or not), and a host of mundane everyday crap. I can spend the rest of the year making pseudo-biographies on the 64 parish presidents in Louisiana, and another 200 to 300 on the jury members that I assure you I can provide the same level of crap sources found on this subject. I don't mind this as there is reportedly unlimited space and those seeking "all things in the world" to be added to Wikipedia will help !vote to keep right? We have consensus and drew a line and accordingly this position does not warrant a stand-alone article let alone a pseudo biography. If the position does not warrant an article then what possible in the world is notable about this subject? My bad, she is a member of the Democratic Party so that has to be it. That is all there is to it. Damn, I should have !voted "keep" regardless of policies and guidelines because who needs them anyway? Otr500 (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not convinced by the rationale (put forward in the nomination) that an independently elected county executive should somehow be treated differently than mayors, where our general standard to meet our notability guideline for cities with a large population is some significant news coverage (more than that they exist, but no general expectation for national coverage). Instead some argue that a county executive should be treated like a small-population mayor (or other elected official, like a school board member), where the coverage is expected to be deep and have national coverage. What this subject appears to have is the title of county executive of a population close to 250,000, with primarily local coverage (or wire stories) of her work as a county executive (and I agree that the Washington Post can be considered local in this instance). I lean toward the former, that population size and the function of the office (like how we evaluate a mayor), affect the standard that should be applied in assessing notability of a county executive. --Enos733 (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every county or parish has at least one large town or three or four smaller ones that would equal around that 250,000 mark. A problem is also that when a person wins (or is appointed in some cases) a position such as this and that is "all there is period" then we would have to ignore WP:BLP1E and the "lets include everything on Wikipedia" side will still try to pull all the local routine coverage to add up to passing "basic". If all we needed was "basic" then pray-tell why all the other notability guidelines? "Basic does mean just that right? This subject has done nothing extraordinary except win an election to a county executive position. This is where we stop trying to wikilawyer one small exception and look at the several policies and guidelines. Even with that if you check out all the references on the article that are not primary then what is there for notability? Some are trying to argue that there is notability other than the position and I simply ask what is it? For notability we are suppose to count multiple references from the same source as one. Not counting the six that cover nothing we are down to about two sources that are still related to the position and not the person. Otr500 (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to List of United States counties and county equivalents, in 2013, there were approximately 40-45 counties that have a population over 1 million, about 100 more that have a population above 500,000 and about 140 more with a population of greater than 250,000 (or about 9 percent of all counties in the United States). Not every county has an independently-elected county executive. All I suggest is that the an independently-elected county executive is similar in function to a mayor, and the standard used for individuals in those positions should be similar. --Enos733 (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no actual guideline about mayors and city size for inherent notability. They must all pass WP:GNG. A search on the notability archives is a good starting point: [25] No mayor has inherent notability due to city size: however, mayors (and even city council members) may pass WP:GNG only for their role for larger cities, and bringing forth a relatively non-notable mayor of a large city to an AfD may well be an exercise in time-wasting (I've considered it myself a couple of times when I couldn't improve the article any further and decided to just walk away). SportingFlyer talk 07:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:POLOUTCOMES (which is a useful guide and description of previous discussions): "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors, although they may be notable for other reasons in addition to their mayoralty (e.g. having previously held a more notable office)." This is where I am starting from. --Enos733 (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Enos733. So, what do we do with someone holding the office of county executive? Does every county executive automatically merit an article? (One that will "usually" survive an AfD.) Or does the executive have to meet the criteria for a mayor, outlined in WP:POLOUTCOMES? Counties are geographically larger than cities and towns, so the extent of authority is larger, at least in terms of area. However, I do not read Wikipedia as placing county chiefs above mayors, in terms of the notability each office respectively provides. But other editors may have a different viewpoint. In fact, this AfD may be a good opportunity to make this point clearer, and spend less time in similar future AfDs. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest extreme caution in any use of WP:POLOUTCOMES. First, it's an essay, not a policy, like the guidelines that have been debated. Second, its just another way of saying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but for some reason somewhat acceptable? Perhaps because it describes stuff in the abstract, not specific instances - which isn't a good reason. Third, its not clear whether the points are an accurate characterization of those previous AFDs. Nor is there any record of the unique considerations behind each of those AFDs.Bangabandhu (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Outcomes provides guidance about how similarly situated subjects have been resolved at AfD. Without OUTCOMES (or a similar look back at past decisions), we would be starting from scratch every time about the meaning of particular policies. For instance, knowing that statewide candidates are usually redirected to an article about the campaign provides a useful standard - that we agree that campaigns are notable, even if the candidates are not. Similarly, with mayors, there is a rule of thumb between regionally prominent and other cities. --Enos733 (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:POLOUTCOMES text is not an essay and neither is it a policy or a guideline itself. It is intended to supplement and clarify the Wikipedia guideline about notability, with emphasis on politicians and admins of state agencies. As such, they are part (an extension) of the policy they respectively clarify and supplement. -The Gnome (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's one characterization of WP:POLOUTCOMES, another is that is an unnuanced, broad, and potentially inaccurate way that previous debates have been decided. Many AFDs and the entry under consideration have unique features; this gets lost when all that's retained is several bullet points. There is no real detail in POLOUTCOMES or links to any of the specific discussion. There's no "why" in POLOUTCOMES, just a (potentially inaccurate) description of "what". If POLOUTCOMES were to be really helpful or usable, it would give specific reference to previous AFDs that would help editors understand why a particular decision was made. Referencing POLOUTCOMES produces a self-reinforcing decision which may have, at its basis, been wrong. It baffles me that one can't cite specific previous decisions, because WP:OtherStuffExists but can cite WP:POLOUTCOMES, even though the latter doesn't provide any depth for why a particular decision was reached. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have it exactly wrong, Bangabandhu. Reality is the exact opposite of your assertions. WP:POLOUTCOMES does provide "real detail," and being the outcome of related AfDs it has become consensus policy and we certainly can invoke and reference it!

From the looks of it, you disagree with WP:POLOUTCOMES ("unnuanced, broad, and potentially inaccurate", "no real detail", "no 'why'", "may have been wrong", etc) but that is simply your personal viewpoint. I fully respect your take on it but I cannot ignore that WP:POLOUTCOMES is part of policy. Which means that, yes, it is an enforceable decision. We either have policy or we don't. -The Gnome (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that fixing a number would be a start. 250,000 is the number that a US Representative has. 200,000 would exclude all but maybe 2 cities and 2 parishes in Louisiana. GNG does not mean we are suppose to take routine news reports-- especially specific to the job and not the subject, maybe good content refernces --add them up and claim passing GNG as proposed above. IF there are not BLP references then the subject and position should be covered on the county artic. Otr500 (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There seems inconsistency as to which politicians are considered for "automatic inclusion". When the population of represented/constituent area (as well as the level of office) not taken into account, it creates skewed situations where persons who are state legislators from states with population of less than a million, such as Wyoming (pop 580,000), and city council members from so-called global cities representing districts (such as District 2 (New York City Council), with a population of less than 175,000), get an automatic pass, while some county executives, head of executive branch&highest elected official, do not. Certainly some county executives, such as those from Suffolk County, New York (pop 1.2million), Fairfax County, Virginia, (pop 1.1 million), and the Cuyahoga County Executive, OH (pop 1.2 million), for example, wield major influence. While mayors have long been part of the political landscape, the public office of county executive is relatively new to it (and misunderstood, as seen in some comments in this thread). Clearly Wikipedia needs more articles about the offices and the persons holding them.Djflem (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, there are some good reasons for the supposed inconsistency - often because this is a global encyclopedia and that the county/parish level of government does not necessarily exist in all places, as compared to cities or subnational governments (states, provinces, etc.). --Enos733 (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing "supposed" about it. To discuss other stuff, as mention above, a cursory view of county will show that that tier of government exists in many places including two of the 2nd & 4th largest countries in the world (India 1.2 billion w/ districts and Indonesia/261million regencies). Also, many nations don't have a comparable state-level tier of government, yet EN:Wikipedia does includes articles about US state politicians. More absurdly it automatically includes/makes default notable some state and local legislators such as Jerry Apa (SD) and Allen Jaggi (WY) and Peter Leon (Toronto) and Michael Abel (NYC), but not some county executives, mayors, or constitutional officers. How is that rational, let alone encyclopedic? Seems glaringly inadequate, and, to be fair, not objective crtieria. This inconsistency also does not address the question about constituent population represented. Something is broken.Djflem (talk) 06:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Population does not equal notability, especially in the American political system. Anyone who claims otherwise must be unfamiliar with the system that was established when America was founded. Does not the Senator from Wyoming and the senator from California have equal power, even though the senator from California represents nearly 80 times the population that the senator from Wyoming does? The founding fathers did not want power to be determined by population alone. Each state has different government structures too. Despite its relatively small population, New Hampshire has over 400 members of its state legislature, yet a much more populated state like Arizona has less than 100. Liekwise, not all county governments are the same eithier. Some have broad powers to pass laws and other do little more than carry out administrative duties dictated by the state. In some cases a mayor may actually have more power than the leader of the county his city is in. The point is each politician's notability must be considered by their own actions, not by the population they represent.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why Jerry Apa is inherently notable and Jan Gardner is not in Wikipedia world? 20:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Isn't that ridiculous?! And its been that way for a long time, too. Think about all the entries that have been lost, all the hours of work that were for nothing, and all of the voters and citizens who are less informed about their leadership. The threshold for inclusion as a local politician/executive is so high, its conceivable that someone could pass AFD on their own merits before they became a local politician. Then, after election, as editors now interpret guidelines, the local politician would have the scarlet letter of local politician non-notability and be subject to AFD. Unfortunately, I can't link to such entries, as they've already been deleted. Its awful, to the detriment of the project and its readership, and to what positive end? Bangabandhu (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This interpretation of the guidelines is utterly ridiculous, to borrow a term. If a person gets Wikinotable outside of politics, entering politics does not change the criteria upon which the person's Wikinotability is assessed! Since, Bangabandhu, you find that situation "awful," I challenge you to produce examples of articles where the subject was notable before but not after becoming a pol and so were deleted. Friendly advice: Don't bother! Even if you find such an article, you'll see that the subject had been originally non-notable.

As to the sorrow expressed over "all the entries that have been lost, all the hours of work that were for nothing," well, boo hoo. I have precisely zero sympathy for folks who use Wikipedia as their personal blog, a place to promote their beloved personal favorites, or simply to see their "name" in lights. Mindless serial creation of articles has become a pest in Wikipedia, which is why the AfD process is getting so much work. All those folks who put in work-hours to create articles that were deleted deserve kudos for their effort, and encouragement to carry on, but nothing more is to be learned by that. -The Gnome (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per Bearcat, Otr500, SN54129, Sitush, Gnome et al....

Unsigned comment by Winged Blades of Godric

Delete I was initially split, but I found that those supporting deletion (Bearcat, JPL, Gnome etc.) provided rationales complicit with policy. Being first, to my knowledge, in an otherwise unnotable county office is not in accordance with anything I read at NPOL and GNG. I see the "are we running out of server space?" argument to avoid has also reared its ugly head. A good illusion is made with the cite overkill, but analysis of the sources reveals primary sources, passing mentions, and routine coverage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting an irony in the fact that while this interminable AfD has run on, in the real world Garder has been in the national news cycle Heavy Rainfall Causes Flooding, Damages Roads , and just picked up a prize for exceptional emergency management Frederick County EMS named top in state. Undoubtedly, her management of the County's ongoing flooding, water control, and wastewater management policies - discussed above and on the page, will again come under scrutiny .E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no irony here, the coverage is consistent with what we've been discussing and I've already mentioned the flood coverage above. The first link you present has only a quote from her and the second is local media coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the sake of accuracy, the U.S. News and World Report/ AP story contains two quotes: Heavy rainfall in a Maryland county over the past two days has caused flooding and damaged roads, and local officials prepared for even more precipitation Thursday. Frederick County has received nearly 10 inches (25 centimeters) of rain, officials said. Frederick County Executive Jan Gardner declared a state of emergency to free up any resources needed to deal with more flooding and any additional damage. 'We are not restricting travel or asking residents to do anything immediately other than to make sure they use extreme caution during this time period,' Gardner said. 'The state of emergency is an administrative tool.' Meanwhile, the city of Frederick has asked residents to limit water use. City officials say the city's wastewater treatment plant is at risk of additional overflow. Gardner compared the rainfall to a 16-hour storm that caused historic flooding of Carroll Creek in 1976. A similar storm on Tuesday dumped about 7 inches (18 centimeters) in less than three hours. 'The massive amount of rain simply has overwhelmed already stressed drainage systems, sewage systems and stormwater ponds,' Gardner said. Yes, it's just coverage of a local flood. But over the 20 years during which she has been in office, there have been several thousand articles that cover her role in shaping water and development policy in Frederick County. It was the extraordinary volume of hits that first caused me to take a close look at her when this came up on the AfD list; MILL county politicians do not get this kind of news overage. Last month's coverage was about a flood, not about policy, but so many of them are about her role in policy that a good article can be created.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GOOGLEHITS--Rusf10 (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer : Good luck!.. -The Gnome (talk) 07:49, 8 June 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endless Games[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. It does exist, and searching find primarily hits on retailers selling its products. Unable to find any significant independent coverage of this company. Article is unreferenced except one cite to its own website. MB 18:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no claim to meeting notability guidelines. Ifnord (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. Basie (talk) 00:45, 7 June 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

XpLo5ioN[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines for musicians. I have been unable to locate significant coverage from reliable sources. It appears that the original PROD template was removed without addressing the concern. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This group has done a nice job getting their mixes and videos listed at dozens of streaming sites and promotional social media, some of which are used as "evidence" in the article already. I cannot find anything beyond these and other basic listings of their existence, but existence is not notable. A few sources talk more concretely about the original songs that these guys remixed, but notability is notability is not inherited either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, for failing WP:MUSICBIO. Ifnord (talk) 18:53, 6 June 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 Network in Canadian History and Environment#Activities. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nature's Past: Canadian environmental history podcast[edit]

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

This had has a notability tag on it for nine years, and it's easy to see why. A Google search returned no reliable results that weren't simply releases for the podcasts. Fails WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. Also of note is that the Wikipedia article was written almost entirely by the host of the podcast himself. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Network in Canadian History and Environment, the organization which produces said podcast, already mentioned at the target article. That article, for the record, is in pretty rough shape, too, but I think there's enough evidence of notability to retain the organization. This, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have attracted attention independent of its producer. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Network_in_Canadian_History_and_Environment#Activities, where the podcast is already mentioned. Not independently notable and a separate article is not required. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:50, 5 June 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) –CaroleHenson (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Apollon[edit]

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

I am not finding information to establish notability for this individual, per WP:GNG and WP:Notability (sports). I see that he is a professional wrestler, who participated in fights in many countries, but I am not finding a book, newspaper article, or other source with information about what makes him remarkable. –CaroleHenson (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment tricky one this; we have no SNG for WP:NWRESTLING, so according to WP:NSPORTS, we have to use the criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER (!!!) ("Any athletic entertainment event where the results are at least partially predetermined or scripted is not covered by this page. For participants in such events (e.g. Professional wrestling), see WP:ENTERTAINER").
Part of the problem is the sourcing of course. Now, bearing in mind that he subject died in 1997—the vast majority of coverage on him will be in the dead-tree press (e.g., [26]), not online. However: by that standard, any online discussion of someone who is dead so long before the medium existed merely emphasises their notability. I.e., if coverage has seeped from the offline, to the online, it can be taken that the original coverage must have been even greater. Such discussion has indeed occured: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31].
As for specific claims to notability required by WP:ENTERTAINER. I suggest:
Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions: He won the World_Wrestling_Council's Trinidad & Tobago Heavyweight Title [32] in 1981 (and, indeed, is listed as doing so in our own article), and also World Heavyweight Champion [33], [34]. Now, these titles (national and international) are presumably the equivalent on premier level participation as required by NSPORT, and also the "significant role" with presumably a concomitant "fan base or a significant "cult" following"—inate to westling!—and I guess the so-called "coconut butt" could well constitute the required "unique...or innovative contribution" to his sport. Taken together, it seems that Apollon won some pretty notable titles in his day, and passes our notability requirements—not the least WP:ANYBIO, which asks that a subject have made a "recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."
Cheers, —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Serial Number 54129! Great job! I would be happy to withdraw the nomination based upon the information you found.

Are you at all interested in improving the article based upon this information?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the topic has generated enough coverage by independent reliable sources that it is encyclopedic. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2034 FIFA World Cup[edit]

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

Per ~~WP:SNOWBALL~~ WP:CRYSTALBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Drafty WP:TOOSOON. Hhkohh (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Already meets WP:GNG. If the issue is to avoid speculative editing, that can be done with a large number of editors watching the page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first bid's already in. The baby is born and it's a healthy article. -The Gnome (talk) 07:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yes it's 16 years away (!) but there's enough information to justify an article, even if it never happens... Giant Snowman 10:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sensing that 2034 is only 16 years away is both exhilarating and (a little) vertiginous, at least to these 20th century born eyes.

The Gnome (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Sportsfan 1234: did you mean to nominate based on WP:SNOWBALL, or did you intend to nominate based on WP:CRYSTALBALL? Iffy★Chat -- 11:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Already sufficient coverage on the bidding process that it would be notable even if it didn't go ahead. Fenix down (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SNOWBALL is not a valid deletion rationale. Assuming nom meant WP:CRYSTALBALL, it still doesn't apply because there is ample information available. Smartyllama (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems valid enough to me and just scrapes GNG, don't know if I be alive then to watch it know!! Govvy (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough information to warrant an article. S.A. Julio (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to FIFA World Cup: !voting' is not a headcount against or in the face of broad community consensus and WP:policies and guidelines. This is actually pretty funny. The deadline for filing is 2026 but something 16 years away is notable how? It flies-in-the-face of What Wikipedia is not in so many areas that includes future events, indiscriminate collection of information, or newspaper reporting because it is far WP:TOOSOON. If the 2032 U.S. presidential election and 2040 Summer Olympics are examples of what is not acceptable for future events, or even the 250th anniversary of the United States of America in 2026 (found in WP:NOT) then we are trying to just slide down a slope that we can now include 2040 content, then 2050-60-70. Because there is other stuff does not give precedence for exemption over broad community consensus that is even included in the five pillars. Because there are news reports of events does not make them inherently acceptable for inclusion. An exception would be that the title and content improves Wikipedia. That would be an acceptable exclusion but that has not been argued and would be dubious. Anything else is just an attempt to open the door for "anything can be included with a source". This would not be so bad as we could stop having AFD's and just fill Wikipedia with anything. Otr500 (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- United States Semiquincentennial exists, though. It's notable enough to include at this point. Why? Because it has been covered in reliable sources. Smartyllama (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Future elections are a poor analogy as the next election will directly affect the following one and the frequency could be change. Whereas, the Also, an article for the 2028 Summer Olympics does exist. Tanbircdq (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. I don't understand the nominator's argument either. However, an article about an event 16 years in the future defies WP:COMMONSENSE. I can understand having an article for the world cup in 2022, at least the location has been selected already, but everything in this article is speculation (see WP:CRYSTALBALL). Countries have another 8 years to decide if they even want to submit a bid. I'd also support a selective merge (along with content from the 2026 & 2030 article which also should not exist) into something like Future World Cup bids.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting a merge of the contested article into an article that does not exist? -The Gnome (talk) 09:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am, but it would be a merge of three articles.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly oppose merging the 2026 article with anything, since bidding has officially opened, bids have been officially submitted, and we will (probably) have a host in less than a month. There has also been significant coverage in reliable sources about the expansion to 48 teams in 2026, a unique situation that would justify its own article even if there weren't any bids yet. Nothing official has happened for 2030 or 2034, so perhaps we could merge those two, but concrete bids have been proposed for both even if the official channels to formally submit them haven't opened yet. You could make a stronger case for those two, though. Merging 2026 is ridiculous at this point, and I'm guessing Rusf10 didn't read that article or do any research before recommending the merge or he would have known that. Smartyllama (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We already have 2026 FIFA World Cup and 2030 FIFA World Cup. Why? Because they have been notably reported as future events, even though they are some ways into the future. One can check out the articles for details and sources. The 2034 FIFA World Cup has taken on substance through similar media reports and FIFA members' activity, specifically on the geopolitical, diplomatic level: Asian nations are already moving in for a collective bid. So, the subject's already notable. And everyone should be aware that FIFA's world cups are affairs of an always very long term nature. -The Gnome (talk) 09:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS. Newspapers reporting that some countries have interest in submitting a bid is nothing but speculation, and an article about an event 16 years in the future is clearly either WP:FANCRUFT or a serious lack of WP:COMMONSENSE. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Vorbee (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In 2013, a prospect of Bahrain hosting the Cup in the next 50 years was mentioned, which surely isn't enough for an article 2062 FIFA World Cup. The 2034 situation is clearly different than that, but how different really? Enough for a standalone article, or a list and some prose concise enough to fit in a section of FIFA World Cup hosts? Almost all of the article's current information is already there, by the way. I'm undecided. --Theurgist (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you are only concerned about WP:TOOSOON or WP:BALL, it is better to draftify (move article to draft space), or we will waste time in a few year to recreate it. Hhkohh (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article can always be restored even if it was deleted, in any case, when the time to create the article comes, the available information will probably have changed, so there might be no or little useful content in the draft anyway... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can't restore deleted article with a deletion discussion. Hhkohh (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, with proper reasons (which would be the case once this article becomes something more than WP:A hell of a lot TOOSOON stuff), yes you can, see Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Access_to_deleted_pages 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean we should post to WP:DRV at that time? Hhkohh (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you wouldn't even need to do that - asking an administrator for a copy of the page (at the proper time) would also work 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No! It may be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G4. Hhkohh (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G4 explicitly doesn't apply to "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". Once this isn't TOOSOON (in maybe a few years), there is nothing which prevents the page from being restored. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is good to me, but draftify is not harmful to me. Hhkohh (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's already being discussed in multiple media articles and passes WP:GNG. This should only be deleted if if nothing can be said about [it] that is verifiable and not original research, which it can currently. SportingFlyer talk 07:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant sports event, by now sufficiently covered in the media. gidonb (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: already sufficient coverage of the presumed bidding, so worth keeping at this point. The article would have been created at some point; no reason to delete it now. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is being discussed as noted by the references. ₪RicknAsia₪ 09:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the evebt is set to take place after 16 years. The regular coverage about the subject makes it pass WP:GNG. Pratyush (talk) 10:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The topic has received significant coverage from numerous independent, reliable sources on the bidding process making it notable and passes WP:GNG even if we destroy the world, a higher being ends life on earth, we're invaded by aliens or any other reason why it doesn't happen. Tanbircdq (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per The Gnome, the baby has been born with the first bid but there may also potentially be a player in the tournament who may not have been born yet! Tanbircdq (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The youngest player in this year's final is more than 19, and so it's unlikely that a 16-year-old will be playing in 2034, but point taken. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of players have played in a World Cup after just turning 17 and many have played international football under this age so it's not inconceivable. This year is a poor showing that there aren't any players aged 18 or under. Tanbircdq (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should we rename this to something like "Bids for the 2034 FIFA World Cup" until there's coverage of anything else relating to it? Currently the only content in this article is countries who are interested in bids and nothing beyond that. LittlePuppers (talk) 19:54, 6 June 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) –CaroleHenson (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Apollon[edit]

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

I am not finding information to establish notability for this individual, per WP:GNG and WP:Notability (sports). I see that he is a professional wrestler, who participated in fights in many countries, but I am not finding a book, newspaper article, or other source with information about what makes him remarkable. –CaroleHenson (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment tricky one this; we have no SNG for WP:NWRESTLING, so according to WP:NSPORTS, we have to use the criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER (!!!) ("Any athletic entertainment event where the results are at least partially predetermined or scripted is not covered by this page. For participants in such events (e.g. Professional wrestling), see WP:ENTERTAINER").
Part of the problem is the sourcing of course. Now, bearing in mind that he subject died in 1997—the vast majority of coverage on him will be in the dead-tree press (e.g., [35]), not online. However: by that standard, any online discussion of someone who is dead so long before the medium existed merely emphasises their notability. I.e., if coverage has seeped from the offline, to the online, it can be taken that the original coverage must have been even greater. Such discussion has indeed occured: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40].
As for specific claims to notability required by WP:ENTERTAINER. I suggest:
Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions: He won the World_Wrestling_Council's Trinidad & Tobago Heavyweight Title [41] in 1981 (and, indeed, is listed as doing so in our own article), and also World Heavyweight Champion [42], [43]. Now, these titles (national and international) are presumably the equivalent on premier level participation as required by NSPORT, and also the "significant role" with presumably a concomitant "fan base or a significant "cult" following"—inate to westling!—and I guess the so-called "coconut butt" could well constitute the required "unique...or innovative contribution" to his sport. Taken together, it seems that Apollon won some pretty notable titles in his day, and passes our notability requirements—not the least WP:ANYBIO, which asks that a subject have made a "recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."
Cheers, —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Serial Number 54129! Great job! I would be happy to withdraw the nomination based upon the information you found.

Are you at all interested in improving the article based upon this information?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Freddie Laker. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Awards[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Merge with Sir Freddie Laker: This article does not meet general inclusion criteria in WP:N; no reliable secondary sources (the one source on the page doesn't actually exist), I can't find any reliable secondary sources that feature these awards; there's a couple of quick mentions that don't constitute significant coverage. Amsgearing (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Freddie Laker. I have added some sources to the article, but per source searches, the topic may not quite meet GNG for a standalone article. The merge target article has no mention, so this would improve it, as per WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 3 June 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) 18:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blindsinabox[edit]

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

Unremarkable product. TheLongTone (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails NCORP by miles. Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORG and is obviously created with promotional intent. Being a contrender in this kind of reality show is absolutely not a reason for a Wikipedia article. I was actually in the process of tagging this A7+G11 when there was an edit conflict with the creation of this AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:28, 31 May 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Full Arsenal Tour[edit]

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

A short tour that garnered little press other than local coverage. Fails WP:NTOUR and WP:GNG. Not everything that a notable subject does is notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every concert tour that has ever existed is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article that just lists the calendar of performances and the setlist, or is sourced exclusively to the band's own website and a ticket sales agent — the notability test for a concert tour is not "it happened", but "it was the subject of reliable source coverage in media which establishes its significance". But there's simply no evidence of that being shown here. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 5 June 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) 18:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ACS Peacock[edit]

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

Was dePRODed. Concern was=No coverage by independent reliable sources. No indication that it meets WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: None of the sources added are independent. It does not seem to meet any of the requirements of WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR and it lacks the in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources needed to meet our general notability guidelines. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The new sources added, particularly the reviews are sufficient to meet WP:AUTHOR so I am happy to change my !vote. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is verifably Professor of Middle Eastern and Islamic History at University of St Andrews, with books published by Oxford University Press [44], in the Proceedings of the British Academy [45], and by Edinburgh University Press [46]. His field of expertise is rather specialist but his publications are reviewed within their field. See the several journal reviews references in the article. And although the full article is paywalled, the portion of Jürgen Paul's Journal of Islamic Studies article which is visible here includes this assessment: "...Peacock’s two volumes form the actual works of reference for the Seljuq dynasty and Iranian (and partly Syrian and Caucasian) societies in the eleventh and twelfth centuries and constitute a new point of departure for the ongoing re-evaluation of this crucial period in the history of the Middle East. This process has been going on for the last decade or so, and Andrew Peacock has been one of the driving forces...". That is indicative of WP:NACADEMIC criterion 1 and I think criteria 3 and 5 likely to be met by virtue of the factors which I discussed above. AllyD (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The books are mostly edited volumes, not books of his own scholarship, with the exception of a glossy art-museum book with four authors. Is that really the sort of contribution that passes WP:PROF? There might be a better chance of WP:AUTHOR but I'd want to see more reviews or more-mainstream reviews to make a stronger case for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The two books covered in the Jürgen Paul article cited above are singular works: "Early Seljuq History: A New Interpretation" (Routledge, 2010) and "The Great Seljuk Empire"(Edinburgh UP, 2015), as are earlier studies published by Routledge. AllyD (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With the additional books now listed and the reviews I found for them, our article now lists three single-author books, one multi-author book, and four edited volumes, with a total of 16 published reviews. That's enough for WP:AUTHOR and probably also WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:AUTHOR with substantive reviews of the subject's works. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:AUTHOR, with numerous reviews of his books, also meets WP:ANYBIO in his field, Seljuq dynasty. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR. -- Dane ^talk 04:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted by other the subject seems to meet notability guidelines. Dunarc (talk) 22:55, 4 June 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) 18:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ricoh Source Code Public License[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. Wikipedia is not a repository for legal documents. Did not see any sources that indicate this public license is more notable than other public licenses. Rogermx (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-sourced and sources found were primary only so this looks promotional. Otr500 (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication that the licence is used by anyone other than Ricoh. Not notable. Cabayi (talk) 10:34, 4 June 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. SpinningSpark 11:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Man Thida Park[edit]

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

A bit Crystal bally for my liking. Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: It is one of the largest parks in Mandalay before demolished in 1990s. So WP:CRYSTALBALL does not apply in this case. This rather large park in a major city is notable. Plenty of WP:RS coverage available to establish notability. [47][48][49] --Phyo WP (message) 16:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Phyo Wp. Not exactly Crystal Balling when the Park already existed. Egaoblai (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, but we are also talking about a park that no longer exists and is going (not even stated) to be recreated. It's not even in the same place (is is it in fact the same place with the same name?).Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opened The park was rebuild and reopen in 2018.

Kantabon (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what the article says, and I can find zero sources for this park opening, at least under this name.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So I decide to just look for parks, and guess what not in the 10 best [50].Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are many local sources about the opening of park.[51].Sorry for Burmese language sources.Kantabon(talk)14:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notability. This is just a city park that was torn down and supposedly rebuilt. It would be an indiscriminate collection of information to slide down the slippery slope of listing every city park in every city of the world because there is local writing about it. Otr500 (talk) 04:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not?This is not only a city park.The park include in the important role of the city's history.Kantabon(talk)5:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Procedural Keep on the nature of the argument presented alone: this isn't a WP:CRYSTALBALL article. I haven't done a deep dive into notability, but the original park may very well be notable. SportingFlyer talk 18:05, 5 June 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) 18:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cavaliers–Celtics rivalry[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. The biggest issue is that it fails the guideline WP:WHYN, namely that multiple sources are needed "so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view". Otherwise, editors will just cherry-pick facts from routine coverage in recaps of individual games or series, as opposed to independent sources that look at the rivalry as a whole. Moreover, routine coverage liberally uses the term rivalry to manufacture hype. There could be a personal rivalry with LeBron James and Boston, but that includes his time with Miami as well.[52] Recent coverage might try to generate animosity because of Kyrie Irving's trade from Cleveland to Boston. —Bagumba (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. There is no rivalry between these teams and it sounds like WP:RECENTISM. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Quick google searches of "Cavaliers Celtics rivalry" and "Celtics Cavaliers rivalry show very little beyond the current season (specifically the recent conference finals and the Kyrie Irving trade). The article itself is merely a list of 250 scores and a one-sentence description of each playoff meeting. It is poorly sourced, and the few sources that are there only confirm the results of the games and do nothing to describe these teams as "rivals." Frank Anchor^Talk 13:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The two teams haven't been good in the same season until this year as far as I can remember. Notable rivalries generally need longstanding powerhouses. This one isn't an exception. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Celtics (Led by Pierce, Garnett and Allen) knocked the LeBron-led Cavs out of the playoffs in 2008 and 2010. Game five of the 2010 series was the infamous LeBron-Quit-on-the-Cavs game. That said, it was more of a LeBron-Celtics rivalry Dammit_steve (talk) 14:56, 31 May 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) 18:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arnaud Ventura[edit]

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

Found when an editor tripped an AIV bot while removing tone templates. This BLP is about a French entrepreneur who has founded some companies. There are some sources, but in my opinion it is all auto-generated or highly niche stuff. The article was written by an SPA who has only edited this and an article about one of the companies the subject founded. A Train^talk 10:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in depth about the subject, just passing mentions. As stated, by norminator the author account maybe a promotion only account. Edidiong (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:08, 31 May 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) 18:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SharePlanner[edit]

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

Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete per norm Edidiong (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- not notable and nobody cares enough to write anything about it, on- or off-wiki. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:19, 1 June 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rasul Baksh Rais[edit]

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

The professor does not appear to easily pass professor test and basic GNG.. The cited sources does not discuss the subject directly and in detail. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Google search reveals namecheck type of coverage . GNG says we need "Significant coverage which addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Unfortunately based on the cited and available RS, a standalone BLP cannot be created.

The page claims the subject has authored a few books. I would say every professor write something but its the notable work which counts therefore this one fails to meet WP:AUHTOR as wel. Saqib (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 31 May 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) –CaroleHenson (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Theatre (Gonzales, Texas)[edit]

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

I cannot find information to establish notability. The article had 2 sources, one of which mentioned another theater entirely and I couldn't find a reliable source for the information. Now, the only source is a primary source. The town's government site has info about the theatre, but it's a copy-paste from the primary source. I can find no other reliable source for information to establish notability. It's supposedly a historic theater, but the county historic commission has nothing about it, and I could find no article about its history. So, it does not appear to be a notable place (i.e., does not meet Wikipedia:Places of local interest, WP:ORG). –CaroleHenson (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find anything. I did think it might be on the National Register of Historic Places but I cannot spot it. BTW, wouldn't this usually be spelled theater in the US? I realise that its own website does not spell it that way but it may affect searching for sources. - Sitush (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually it would be spelled theater, but in this case the primary source spells it theatre.–CaroleHenson (talk) 11:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree - if it were on the Register, I would say keep despite the shortcomings of the article. But it doesn't seem to be. Deb (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one of the biggest GNG failures I have seen in a long time. - Sitush (talk) 11:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is this entry from the City of Gonzales,and many articles about events and programs at the theater such as here, here here, and this. It's listed as a tourist attraction here. It received a Hurricane Harvey relief grant see here. If it's not independently notable wouldn't it be best to merge the key bits to Gonzales, Texas article where it's already noted? FloridaArmy (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What would you consider to be the "key bits"?Deb (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few sentences covering its history and current use. That's about all there is in the article anyway. Although it could certainly be expanded with the sources noted above if it's kept. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things, FloridaAmy, the city source is a copy-paste of the information from the website for the theater. And, if it was a notable historic building, then there would be article stating that and a nomination as a state or national building. Even the county historic preservation commission does not mention this building.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the GNG or subject-specific notability criteria. Maybe the article creator should put the effort into finding sources BEFORE they publish their article, rather than waiting until the Article for Deletion discussion - it would have saved other people a lot of work. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I was able to significantly expand the article using Cinema Treasures (I believe the article previously cited their article on another theater in Gonzalez, misinterpreting a comment there as saying they had the same architect; it was the same operator, in the 1920s, and I have not been able to find an architect name for the Crystal Theatre) and the local paper, The Gonzales Inquirer, whose online archives include in addition to several articles on shows and children's workshops every year and several mentions in annual year-in-review articles and coverage of the city council has at least two articles about the recent history of the theater and its ownership. Cinema Treasures and an article in the Victoria Advocate give a different year for its opening from the theater's own website, which also presents a more cut-and-dried picture of its history this century than the Inquirer; it was renovated in the 1980s, children's acting training, with productions more or less year round, started in the early 1990s though the theater was not always used for the performances ... so I changed some of what was already there. The coverage all appears to be local, and I wish I could see earlier Inquirer articles online if only from the dinner period era and the acquisition of the building by the current ownership that did the renovations, in order to determine how many of them there were, but there's a lot of it from the indexed period; the Advocate's coverage, however, is little more than performance listings. The building is within the Gonzales Commercial District NRHP area but non-contributing due to alterations to the facade (PDF here, though it takes about half an hour to load). I think it squeaks by on GNG.—Yngvadottir, (talk • contribs) 19:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC) (CaroleHenson added missing signature)[reply]
- Thanks, Yngvadottir, the article looks better after your additions. I'm not sure that the content establishes notability, but it will be interesting to see how the votes shake out.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think User:Yngvadottir's work has pushed it into notability, just. Johnbod (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a relatively important theater, barely passing GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reliable sources have been added to the article and used to expand and improve it since the start of the discussion, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:56, 2 June 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 University of the West Indies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

University of the West Indies (Jamaica)[edit]

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

No individual notability exists for this campus. It is already mentioned at the article for the University of the West Indies, and this article is built on primary sources and a WP:COATRACK mention about something else. The subject of the article, under its correct title, is already a redirect to the University of the West Indies. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wondered this when I first saw the article, but didn't want to delete or nominate because of my previous history with the creator. After I tried to improve it, the content was changed, making it even less notable than it initially appeared. Deb (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of the West Indies and develop there as the main "founding" campus of three campuses [53] The content there barely makes a paragraph so that is already covered and referenced by the main campus article. If it becomes big enough to describe apart from the other campuses, then reconsider rename to University of the West Indies at Mona, but not for now. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an utterly ridiculous nom and illustrates some of the ugly bias and bigotry we see on Wikipedia. A 70 year old university, one source says it was the first English language university in the Caribbean but I haven't verified, with a history dating further back to British estates awarded after the conquest of Jamaica in 1655 from Spain as well as major 19th century sugar plantations. And then it was used as a the site of a WWII evacuee camp and to hold internees. The nom has now resorted to removing the University's history in order to try and sustain his nomination to delete. Would we delete a 70 year old University in the U.S. or the U.K.? How about one on a site dating to an estate from the 1660s? One on the site where a camp held refugees during World War II? I think not. Sad really. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"As you would have found out through proper research before starting your article, there's already an article about this university. I'm not sure why you started another. Add your information to the article that already exists at University of the West Indies. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That article is about the UWI University system and not this University in Mona Jamaica in particular. It is part of that system, but is obviously independently notable. There's a book about its history. Loads of coverage. And of cpurse we need to add its establishment as a medical school, expansion, what areas of study are offered. Alumni. Etc. Etc. Let's get serious and stop wasting time with these frivolous Afd noms.FloridaArmy (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking off all comments in excess of the one-comment-per-AfD allowed for user FloridaArmy per this decision. -The Gnome (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, FloridaArmy, I see what you are trying to do, but there are several issues. One, the sources should be reliable secondary sources, and only limited use of primary sources. Second, you're mixing in subjects previous to the start of the school... a little of which could be in notes or a background section, but you're peppering the article. If you think that notability can be established for a separate article for the refugee camp, that could work, but it shouldn't be mixed in this article, per WP:COATRACK, as Exemplo347 mentioned.

If you give me a little bit of time, I think I can clean it up to a workable starting place. Please read and comprehend the comments that are made in the edit summary.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Made edits above real quick, need to prove notability.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The University was established at the Camp site. Camp buildings were used. It's part of the history and relegating it to a note at the end is clearpy improper. The aqueduct is on the campus property. So the plantation history and even earlier history is also relevant. And its covered as such in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, FloridaArmy I checked out a similar situation. See University of Colorado Colorado Springs, which has one paragraph, no images, in one place so as to not distract from the true purpose of the article. It then links to another article that goes into more depth.

How about another couple of minutes?–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FloridaArmy, I did my best to summarize the information. An initial thought is that the Mona, Jamaica article would be a great place to add the history of the area and the estates and Botanical Gardens... perhaps with redirects to specific sections. And, a section could also go there for the refugee camp, with a redirect. What do you think?–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC) See Mayfair#History for example.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CaroleHenson I agree with you. The main article about the Univ. of the West Indies already contains a section on its history & as Mona (in Jamaica) is the founding campus, it covers a lot of the info that FloridaArmy is trying to jam into this article. Ideally it should all be there in one place. I'll try and fill in any blanks in the main article later on & hopefully you won't be offended if bits of your hard work start moving across to the main article. As for the refugee camp universally known as Gibraltar Camp, I do think it'd make an interesting article all on its own. As for this article, it's unnecessary & no amount of scattergun editing by the creator will change that - hopefully they will start working with people instead of against them. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exemplo347 Sounds like a good plan to me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the proposed approach. Deb (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note The creator of the article is now under a community sanction preventing them from commenting here again. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347: I hope you don't mind, but I've modified your comment to include a link to the exact wording of the restriction. I read your comment and was about to collapse FA's !vote and the subsequent discussion as being an irrelevant argument from a banned editor, but when I checked I noticed that the exact wording of the ban does allow for one comment: including the diff in your notification would prevent anyone from making the same mistake I almost did. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The place is clearly notable as there's a book about it and there's plenty more to find such as the Jamaica Gleaner. The existence of other related pages with a wider or different scope is not a reason to delete – it's quite normal for there to be several pages about such a complex institution. For example, the place was, for a time, part of the University of London and we have numerous pages about that. Andrew D. (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, The link you provided was about the refugee camp, not the university campus. It is very helpful, though, for starting an article about the camp. For now, I will use it to start a section in the Mona, Jamaica article and perhaps someone may take it further to a full blown article. CaroleHenson (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now Andrew D. - a primary source (the book's printed by the university) and an article that's about something else? Oh dear. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty typical of Andrew's recent AFD comments, honestly. He's just Googling the name of the article and linking the first few items that show up, it seems. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if he was deliberately baiting the community into opening a discussion of whether he should be TBANned him from AFDs in general, though why he would want that escapes me -- maybe he thinks there are enough militant "keepist" editors who would auto-oppose that proposal that it would be shot down with a firm "consensus" that his edits are not disruptive? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of the West Indies. I found just a little bit of useable information about the campus, and it seems that it makes most sense to merge the content into the main article. I will add a section for the campus, though, in the Mona, Jamaica article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Mona campus as well as the other campuses could be developed in Drafts if there are plans to introduce a lot more sourced content to the section. It depends if the other campuses are more like satellites to the main, or whether they are going to be standing on their own as part of a large system. For satellite campuses that are likely to be stub articles, the main article should focus on Mona. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen, the other campuses wouldn't even support stub articles, so it might be best to mention them in the main one. I'm not sure if anyone else has found anything better but it's all passing mentions & non-independent "come and study here" stuff. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that theoretically it seems logical to have separate articles, but I absolutely don't think that there are enough sources. If you're really excited about the idea, I would recommend gathering reliable source for new encyclopedic content and see how many can be found. So far, I am not seeing it as a viable option.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge WP:NOPAGE and all, best to merge it in even if it one could argue it passes the GNG Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, without prejudice against splitting later, pending better sources demonstrating notability, at least enough to build a proper article. I'm a big advocate of articles on academic institutions, but while universities are generally notable by themselves, the same does not necessarily go for their individual campuses. Ritsumeikan University (Suzaku) is probably more "notable" than this school, but I can't imagine English Wikipedia ever having a standalone article on it because it's basically just an administrative office; as for this article, at present literally none of the text past the first sentence relates to the University of the West Indies, and University of London (Mona) would be a better title for the article as it is currently written. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Merge without prejudice, as per Hijiri88's reasoning Chetsford (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have a question for all the Merge !voters and I know I'm going to sound like I'm being a difficult, belligerent fool when I ask it but never mind. What, exactly, are we going to be merging? All relevant content has already been placed into other articles (thanks to the hard work of CaroleHenson) so surely at this point, a redirect, preserving the history for attribution reasons, is the proper outcome? If not, this AfD will close as "Merge" and whoever has to perform the merge will simply look, see that the work has already been done and then turn it into a redirect anyway. It seems to me that a Merge is redundant at this point. If I'm confused, please do point it out, and I'm sorry if I sound like I'm being an ass. (Ping for the people who !voted Merge - AngusWOOF, CaroleHenson, Hijiri88, Chetsford & Galobtter) Exemplo347 (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then the merge has been completed and it can be made into a redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point and good question. I think the only nice addition would be an image of the campus, perhaps replacing a photograph of book shelves in the University of the West Indies#History section. I agree that since there is background information in Mona, Jamaica, the other content does not need to be moved over.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CaroleHenson The only image I can see that isn't already in the main article is this one - would it be suitable? Exemplo347 (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the one I meant. I didn't see the chapel, either, but I meant the image you provided. Sorry I didn't provide a link to it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've made that change as suggested. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, you're right. Since everything has already been merged there's no utility in that outcome for sake of process. A redirect would be preferable. Chetsford (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the answer to Exemplo's question (I haven't read any of the other responses yet) could be decided at a later date. The current title of this article is definitely worth at least a redirect, so the discussion of whether any of the "pre-UWI" history of the Jamaica campus is worth incorporating into the main UWI article can take place on that article's talk page with the history of this one still visible. If I had to say for certain now what I think should be merged, I would say none of it, pending at least one source that actually discusses what we have here as the "pre-history" if UWI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; alternatively, Merge into University of the West Indies. -The Gnome (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is well-sourced and describes a prominent Kingston landmark, which appears in general books on Kingston, like David Howard (2005) Kingston: A Cultural and Literary History and Harry S. Pariser (1990). Jamaica: A Visitor's Guide. That's not bad for an area of the world that tends to be under-represented on wiki. We have articles on individual buildings and even corridors in American universities, and of the individual colleges of Oxbridge, we can surely have articles for the campuses of a major Caribbean university too. Furius (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This can still be merged into the UWI article to cover the main campus. The article as is covers just a paragraph on its history. There isn't enough information at this point to create 3 split campus articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I struggle to believe that, when there is a whole book on this campus (granted that UWI published it, but the main University of the West Indies page also uses it as a source so clearly it is being treated as reliable).Furius (talk) 20:31, 8 June 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) 18:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

76ers–Lakers rivalry[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. The biggest issue is that it fails the guideline WP:WHYN, namely that multiple sources are needed "so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view". Otherwise, editors will just cherry-pick facts from routine coverage in recaps of individual games or series, as opposed to independent sources that look at the rivalry as a whole. Moreover, routine coverage liberally uses the term rivalry to manufacture hype. Currently, the lone substantial work cited is from Fansided, an amateur blog site for fans. —Bagumba (talk) 09:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 11:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. There is no rivalry between these teams and it sounds like WP:RECENTISM. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The teams have had some notable matchups, including the 2001 NBA finals, but sources do not constitute this as a "rivalry". This idea just seems more like hype due to recentism rather than an actual encyclopedic topic.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Bleacher Report list[54] ranks the 76ers third on the list of Lakers' rivals, but notes "A lot of people seem to forget, but the Lakers and Sixers met each other in the NBA Finals three times in four years from 1980 through 1983." (bolding mine) Clarityfiend (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The Bleacher Report article you cited is probably not reliable for judging a true rivalry. B/R started off as an amateur sports fan blog site as well, and that article is representative of the top-10 list style of writing optimzed for search-engine hits for which B/R was infamous (see Bleacher_Report#Criticism). B/R these days has some professinal staff with journalism background; that is probably not one of them.—Bagumba (talk) 23:59, 30 May 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) 18:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

777 Charlie[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:NFF: The article provides no evidence that principal photography has begun. This source provided by the author clearly says Rakshit and the Labrador, Charlie, are training currently together and preparing for the shooting which will kickstart in June there is no clear date when? and this looks like a case of UPE. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly promo copy & clearly fails NFF per nom ☆ Bri (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nom and Bri.~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:04, 3 June 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 Kevin Spacey#Sexual misconduct allegations. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gore (film)[edit]

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

Cancelled incomplete film. "Films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles". The cancellation itself were one line in news report about Spacey at the time. Nothing since. KTC (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete: present tense suggests the film largely exists, just unreleased. Significant as far as the career of Spacey is concerned. I guess some information could be merged. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kevin Spacey#Sexual misconduct allegations. Everything we need to say about the film other than its director is already mentioned there so there is nothing to merge, but it is a useful search term for people wanting to know what happened to it and they will find that information at the suggested target. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. — Film Fan 10:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Thryduulf. Film is eligible for deletion per WP:NFF but Spacey is well-known enough that it would be plausible for someone to search for the film because of his star power. Jip Orlando (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, allow revert if it ever gets released, personally I think it will at least on dvd, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The film was cancelled, and most of what is of note is also said in the Kevin Spacey article. To restore the classical purpose of the notability guideline: this page doesn't have much reason to exist, or anything original to say. talk to !dave 17:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 3 June 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 San Diego Padres first-round draft picks. MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Cumberland[edit]

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

fails WP:NBASEBALL and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of San Diego Padres first-round draft picks. Spanneraol (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of San Diego Padres first-round draft picks as an alternative to deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:01, 2 June 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) 18:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Jones[edit]

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

fails WP:NBASEBALL and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable player. Spanneraol (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.--Yankees10 22:18, 30 May 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 Convert to disambiguation. Consensus is that in the present state, the article is mostly redundant to more specific concepts and thus can serve as a disambiguation, especially since it's poorly written in its current state. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presenter[edit]

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

Unreferenced WP:DICDEF and content fork of all the other types of presenter. If kept, maybe this could be reduced to a dab page. --wooden superman 10:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not going to ~~comment~~ vote here as I see that I first created the article in 2002, when there were not a whole lot of articles on the encyclopedia. I agree that disambiguation is probably a good idea - I see that the original content referred only to television presenters. I think the present wording is actually misleading about what constitutes a presenter. Deb (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, ~~the nominator is trying elsewhere to get journalists on television called entertainers.~~ This article is one of the links used to show that journalists are journalists and not televised entertainers. ~~If I'm wrong and this is done in good faith, my apologies, but the timing raises the question.~~ Randy Kryn (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not, and it has absolutely nothing to do with it. Please strike your bad faith accusations. --wooden superman 11:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so, then sure. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"This article is one of the links used to show that journalists are journalists and not televised entertainers" seems irrelevant to the nomination and does not seem like a reason to keep to me, especially seeing as the entire article has no sources, and better articles on the topics, including news presenters exist elsewhere. It's like you're !voting to keep purely to push your own agenda. --wooden superman 11:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interested editors may want to read Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#WP:PERFNAV and its relationship to news anchors/presenters to decipher whatever the hell Randy is on about. --wooden superman 12:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are in good faith saying you don't know "whatever the hell Randy is on about" and then link to the discussion where this page is linked to whatever the hell I'm on about. Please strike your inaccurate "____ever the hell" (just kidding, no need to strike, especially if you really don't know). But this page is fine and is a notable topic, it just needs a few sources and some editing. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Notable topic which is distinctly different from journalists and news presenters and is useful for linking. If there are problems with the article then this can be addressed through normal editing not deletion, WP:SOFIXIT. Tanbircdq (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or DAB (secondary): Not notable. One reference (a glossary) for a 492 word article means there is a lot of original research or close paraphrasing. I am continually amazed when I see someone !voting "keep" and commenting SOFIXIT. "If" notability is contested by one it is silly to then comment there is notability (with one reference) so anyone !voting delete needs to fix the article. This seems like a two-way street. Otr500 (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is notable per se. It is a class of individuals recognizable by the name. The page is pretty straight-forward information, so original research, at most, pertains to the words used as descriptors. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I am leaning more towards delete because the entire concept, according to references, is confusing at best. There is a lead with a feeble attempt to give a nondescript dictionary explanation while eluding an important aspect that this is a chiefly British term. Why is that not in the lead? The lead deals with two different aspects. A "presenter" as an individual, and a "presenter" as an organization, yet there is nothing in the article (list) concerning the second. The lead is a summary of what is found in the body of an article but this is absent.

"Notable per se" is subjective. This is, in my opinion, wrongly classed and should be a "list-class" if not a DAB because the definition of a glossary would be "a list". As an article this just "presents" things that are already covered on Wikipedia and if not copied, the content, other than "main" links, give evidence of OR but that is a different issue. Notability is not advanced by a reference that is a glossary, specifically K-O from a Public Speaking Course. Being "useful for linking" might be a good argument for ignoring the "rules" but I do not think that will extend to going against any of of the five pillars. I would need something more substantial to even understand what we are trying to present here. Otr500 (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and recategorise as a dab or list page. There should be something here at such a likely search term. SpinningSpark 14:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Change to disambiguation page. I'm not sure there's much to say about presenters in general that wouldn't be covered either in a dictionary definition or in the more specific examples of Television presenter and news presenter etc. We certainly should have something at this page, not just a redlink, so dab page between the "main articles" already mentioned seems good. — Amakuru (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the subject meets notability standards, and no other participants have agreed with the nominator's stance of the article having a promotional tone. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Payida Jabangwe[edit]

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

This person appears to famous for being the youngest CE of a mobile money company at that time. Sounds like BLP1E to me

Highly promotional, this reads like a resume

Non notable IMO Gbawden (talk) 09:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When considering deletion of an exiting article, one should consider the existence of verifiable secondary sources about the subject. I have been able to find at least six secondary sources and I have cited them in the article. It is difficult to argue non-notability with that amount of coverage. The subject's age, nationality, gender, skin color etc., are facts which we all have to live with. She is notable and she deserves a stand-alone article. IMO. Fsmatovu (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Has generated enough secondary source coverage, as shown here [55], to meet GNG. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:05, 30 May 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. – Joe (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mirfatyh Zakiev[edit]

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

The person "Mirfatyh Zakiev" lacks notability and the whole article sounds like a WP:RESUME and WP:PROMOTION. He's an author who promote fringe theories. For example, look at one of his works "Origin of Türks and Tatars - Third chapter - Ancient Türkic-speaking areas" link and see how he created Turkic origin for several ancient Mesopotamian, Near Eastern and Central Asian groups (from Sumerians to Sogdians and Parthians) which is against academic references and scholary sources. I haven't see other experts, notable historians and linguists cited his works. His works look like pseudo-history and pseudo-linguistics stuff. Only a long-term abuser Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34 spammed the English Wikipedia with Zakiev's texts, an example. The whole article is based on his CV (the only cited reference). That's another reason why I think this article is advertising and promotional stuff. Having a WP article and then inserting his fringe works on the articles. Wario-Man (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly promotional article on a non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep totally irrelevant argumentation. Delete request reflects pan-Indo-European intentions by OP. --Kazakh-Lion (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have 3 edits which two of them are disruptive edits [56], [57] and now you appeared here and posted personal attack instead of writing your rationale. Plus, as a new user, how did you find this page? AfD does not work by posting stuff like that. --Wario-Man (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have to proof your claims. As a new member I am allowed to take part in this census. I didn't see any set of reasons or a logical basis for your beliefs. --Kazakh-Lion (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per my nomination and rationale --Wario-Man (talk) 08:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment you should strike your duplicate delete vote - the nominate serves as a delete vote. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, basically per WP:V rather than per WP:N. There are some things listed here that could plausibly pass WP:PROF, for instance his membership in something named to sound like a national academy or his rectorship of the Kazan State Pedagogical University (despite its having become defunct in 2005). But a lot of eastern European academics have puffed-up articles that look like this and a lot of the academy memberships they list are really an organization they made up one day to make their vita look good. So even though in many cases we accept curricula vitarum as reliable sources for the boring details of academics' education and employment histories (when they are not significant to the question of whether the academics are notable), in this case I think we need more. Unless we can turn up sources that make the more significant claims here verifiable, I think we must delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Both, WP:V and WP:N are put out of action by Scholar.google results. --Kazakh-Lion (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar results also shows the name of a pseudo-scientist like Anatole Klyosov and his works. But nobody uses Klyosov's works on WP. And GS does not make his works WP:RS. Same for Mirfatyh Zakiev. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Klysov is a biochemist, he has no right to talk about history, his works can only be used for chemical facts not history. But pvanrb.ru and kpfu.ru do make MZ's works WP:RS, just to name a few. See for Latin/Cyrillic Google Scholar results. And the low citation rate of MZ in english sources does not make his works non WP:RS. --Kazakh-Lion (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar results show single-digit citation counts, far below the level needed for WP:PROF#C1. Probably this is at least in part a language issue rather than a nobody-cites-him issue, but it doesn't make a difference, as either way we have no evidence for notability of that sort. And in any case, even if he were highly cited, we would not be able to have an article without being able to write anything verifiable about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point is how GS results guarantee a WP page for Zakiev? How many notable works written by Zakiev and published or translated via academic sources? How many other scholars have cited or mentioned him in their works? The link to one of his works in my rationale, clearly shows a WP:FRINGE author and his WP article is just promotional/ad stuff. If you see Klyosov has an article here, because he's well-known for pseudo-scientific views and works. Covered by various sources and they are WP:VER. But how is Zakiev a notable person who deserves his own article, and why we should keep his article? Nothing in my opinion. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I understood you right, one has to become famous for it's pseudo-scientific works to get a WP page? How awful is that? In my opinion we should ask for WP:RS in english language, rather then to delete the page. --Kazakh-Lion (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any reasons to remove a page that informs WP readers of an outstanding scholar in Russia who dedicated his efforts to advance the science of Turkology. His many works, his position as an elected Academician, the depth and width of his work and contributions are valued not only by the turkologists, but many other overlapping disciplines. M.Zakiev was fearlessly presenting his works during unfavorable internal policies of the Soviet regime, and was persecuted as soon as Russia reverted back to intellectual dark ages in 2000 AD, when he was dismissed from heading Institute of Linguistic and History. There is no way to badmouth him for his studies or the publication of his studies. Whoever does not like that he illuminated the Turkic-Sumer linguistic links may also not like the recent genetic confirmation that Sumer's decedents carry the same Y-DNA R1b haplogroup as the nomadic Kurganians and the majority of the European and Turkic people. Should we remove the DNA results and their authors from the WP? This is science, and science does not move backward. Deleting a biographical article on a definitely outstanding scholar would not do any damage to the esteemed scholar, but would be a serious disservice to the WP and its readers. Politicizing WP and science is a bad suggestion. The article is somewhat obsolete, it does not cover the last two decades, and could be improved because M.Zakiev, in spite of his age, is still an active scientist of a world class. Vote Keep. Barefact (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to argue the rights or wrongs of Zakiev's theories. What we are interested in here at AfD is whether his ideas are notable. For that it is not enough that he is published - that is just an academic doing his job. For notability, other scholars have to have discussed his work, that is, have taken note of him. Provide evidence of that and he will pass the criteria at WP:PROF SpinningSpark 00:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - he seems to meet criteria #3 on WP:SCHOLAR at least as "a full member of the Academy of Sciences of the Tatarstan Republic"; and WP:POLITICIAN for serving "as a Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the Tatar ASSR". Problem is, there are no sources in the article to substantiate anything besides his own CV. I did find an English version of his CV, for what it's worth, on a blocked site. You'll have to cut and reassemble and paste without the spaces. (http:// s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/20Roots/ZakievGenesis/ZakievBiographyEn .htm) There are also links to his writings and sourcing in scholarly publications. [[58]] [[59]]. Kazakh-Lion and Barefact - can either of you add sourcing? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Even if he does satisfy any of the PROF or POLITICIAN criteria, the article as it stands is clearly too promotional, and has no sources apart from the dude's personal CV written in Russian. — Amakuru (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as chariman of the Tatar ASSR Supreme Soviet he passes WP:POLITICIAN if nothing else. Multiple book sources confirm this [60][61][62]. Probably also gets past WP:PROF as an Academy of Sciences member. SpinningSpark 00:29, 10 June 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kid Eternity enemies[edit]

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

No sources. Kid Eternity isn't really a popular comic book character and his list of villains is rather short. I don't really see a purpose for this article JDDJS (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Duplicate of information available at Kid Eternity with additional unsourced plot info. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:15, 30 May 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Schemers[edit]

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a paid-programming television personality, whose claims of notability are referenced entirely to his own primary source content about himself rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage about him in media. As always, radio and television personalities do not get an automatic free pass over WP:CREATIVE just because their own web presence nominally verifies that they exist -- the notability test is whether media other than himself have given him coverage, not his own self-promotional publicity materials. There's simply nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Borderline as it stands; I see hardly any reliable references. I was going to suggest redirecting but I see nothing notable that it could be redirected to. Deb (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Most marked references have been removed since many citations are no longer readily available on the Internet. And, the remaining references were updated with citations to keep this page from being deleted. Thank you for your input, and please let me know if improvement are still needed. Carvideo (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)Carvideo[reply]

The citations that are still present still don't represent reliable source coverage about him in media independent of his own PR. Every piece of web content that exists at all is not automatically a valid or notability-supporting source — notability is contingent on the degree to which the person can be referenced to reliable source coverage about him in media, not just on being able to use his own self-published web presence to nominally verify that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The two citations given are not own PR. 1) is the public schedule by the syndication group, independent of Kurt Schemers and his media company, 2) references a sample of the actual broadcast media player they built. All other material that Deb request clarifying was removed because the citations were no longer available on the internet. Carvideo (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Carvideo[reply]

Those are not media coverage about him in media outlets unaffiliated with him. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not all citations will be media coverage of a person. The citations remaining are entities not directly managed or in control of him. For instance, TV Guide^[1], would be another example of that - just like the company that syndicates him/show as the citation demonstrates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carvideo (talk • contribs) 15:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A source does not just have to be "not directly managed or in control of him" to fail to be independent of him. If it has any form of direct affiliation with him at all, then it is not independent of him regardless of who does or doesn't have "control" over what or whom else. And a TV Guide listing which just provides the broadcast time of his show, but fails to contain any content about him as a person, does not establish his notability — it is not about him. You are simply not showing the kind of sources it takes to make a person notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. And given your username and your almost complete lack of any history ever contributing to Wikipedia on any other topic, I don't believe that you don't have a direct conflict of interest yourself. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Believe what you may. I don't have a relationship with Schemers. I install camera systems in vehicles and don't have a lot of time to spend on Wiki or the internet for that matter. His show helped me during a difficult time in my life, and adding to this profile is the least I could do. It's gratitude - some snobbish bores may or may not understand that. If it's taken down, my gratitude goes with it. All the language/citations that were originally in question by Deb have been removed and the way it sits now meets criteria to keep it/not delete.Carvideo (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our inclusion standards are based on whether or not a person is the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear GNG, not on individual editors' gratitude or lack thereof. Every person who exists at all probably has somebody who's grateful to them for something, but that's not a reason in and of itself why every person who exists would belong in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The changes to the article have not improved the wording or added any evidence of notability. I am sorry if the article creator thinks we are "snobbish bores" for believing that gratitude is not a good reason for creating an article, but it does, I'm afraid, show that he/she doesn't understand how this encyclopedia works. Deb (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of WP:RS, secondary sources. A Proquest news archive search - which will reliably bring up stuff on broadcast personalities of any notability, brings up page after page of press releases - and nothing else.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poor sourcing in article and I can't find anything substantial with Google wither, reiterating what others have said above. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:38, 7 June 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hands up (music genre)[edit]

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

Not notable, unsourced article. Suggesting a redirect to Hardstyle, based on its resemblance to the genre as quoted here aNode (discuss) 06:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for complete lack of notability, hands down. Note also the total lack of interest on the part of the creator, one prime example of I-can't-be-arsed-ism. -The Gnome (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs down Fails WP:V. A quick look at the German article (the country this genre is alledged to come from) show references mainly from Urban Dictionary. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:V and the description is way too vague to be able to determine exactly what this music "genre" actually is – indeed, searching around the internet tends to throw up posts on Reddit and dance music forums asking for a definition of hands up, which suggests that nobody really knows. I wouldn't redirect it to hardstyle for two reasons: firstly, the article the nominator links to is just one person's definition, and he is a freelance contributor to a non-notable online dance website (I can't determine whether the website is a blog or not... I can see that the founders started it up during their university studies, and all the contributors are enthusiastic freelancers with little or no professional journalistic credentials). Secondly, most people seem to link hands up more to trance or Eurotrance than hardstyle. There's even a Facebook post here [63] which states authoritatively that hands up is actually an umbrella term encompassing almost every style of music that music you want to throw your hands in the air. With such vagueness surrounding the term and no credible sources defining it, deleting seems to be the only option. Richard3120 (talk) 17:36, 30 May 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dollshot[edit]

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

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

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

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

References currently point to non-reliable sources, falling quite short of WP:NMUSIC. A preliminary WP:BEFORE didn't unearth much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources include WNYC (the edited website of a major public radio station) that includes a segment of NPR's All Things Considered with a feature on the band, a blog with 11+ years of reviews and relevance to avant-garde jazz in NY, a review by the renowned longtime Village Voice and The Atlantic jazz critic (and recipient of the Pew Fellowship for the Arts). The New Music Box article cited was commissioned, edited and published by a highly reliable third party. The source ESOPUS is an independent publication. These are all major, reliable, independent and non self-published sources that show the notoriety of the band. Additionally, the list of notable venues played shows activity in and around NYC and CA. Artaria195 (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Artaria195[reply]

— Artaria195 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find sources that would bring them over the WP:GNG guideline. It's all a bunch of blurbs or primary sources. SportingFlyer talk 05:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer Additional sources have been added to the article showing notability in prominent music journals, magazines and newspapers. No sources are "blurbs". All are full-length articles, reviews and features. The sources in this article easily meet the WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC guidelines. The feature on WNYC's Soundcheck and NPR's All Things Considered was broadcast nationally and establishes more notability than many other similar pages on wikipedia. The only potential primary source is ESOPUS, but it is fully independent and there are more than enough other sources that are clearly secondary. Artaria195 (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Artaria195[reply]

First, you're only allowed to vote once.

Thank you, noted, I've made the change. Artaria195 (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Artaria195[reply]

Second, looking at WP:NMUSIC, the only prong they could possibly satisfy is #1. I can't find any good sources in my own search. Of the ones listed, three are offline, which is fine, but I can't review them. None of the other ones are good enough. The weekly music roundup and ESOPUS are trivial, they get name-dropped in the Napster top 10 (in which they are 11th), and the Notes from Underground was literally written by the band. There's not enough out there to allow me to give the benefit of the doubt to the three offline articles which all apparently talk about their first album. SportingFlyer talk 23:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my response below Artaria195 (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Artaria195[reply]

The criteria for #1 WP:NMUSIC is satisfied. The three offline sources are all reliable and significant. The NYC Jazz Record and The Big Takeover both have wikipedia pages with more info if you'd like to review further. The WNYC Weekly Roundup is not trivial; it is a feature, published and broadcast by Soundcheck, a preeminent national media outlet. The Jazz Critics' Poll (now published on Napster) is a highly respected honor in the music industry. The band is included in the list of a Grammy-nominated music critic who organizes the poll, Francis Davis. In both of these sources, the band is featured alongside other independently notable artists. "Notes from Underground" is written by the band, but was commissioned, edited and published by a highly reliable third party. The fact that the band was commissioned to write an article about their music in NewMusicBox further supports notability. Additionally, Dollshot has two albums on Underwolf Records and so would also satisfy #5 of WP:NMUSIC, as Underwolf is "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable" (Hampton Fancher, Marco Cappelli, Mauro Pagani, Anthony Coleman, David Tronzo, Ivan Wyschnegradsky, etc.). These facts together exceed the guidelines for notability. Artaria195 (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Artaria195[reply]

I disagree on all fronts - there is not enough here to show notability - and I'm also concerned about the SPA nature of your account. SportingFlyer talk 04:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Thank you for this discussion (I initially posted the article). Respectfully, I disagree with SportingFlyer and Drewmutt. The article lists reliable and non-trivial sources, and asserting that they are all a bunch of blurbs or primarily sources is inaccurate—there is a distinction between reviews or features from respected music journalists on edited platforms with wide reach and blurbs written by publicists. WNYC, Liquid Culture, and Francis Davis (who, despite writing for Napster at the time, commands a formidable reputation in the world of NYC jazz criticism as longtime jazz critic for The Village Voice and The Atlantic) are clear examples of the former.

New Music Box is the top online publication in the new classical / experimental music world. The New Music Box article was indeed written by the band. However, it is not promotional material—it's primarily about the microtonal composer Ivan Wyschnegradksy and secondarily about the band's incorporating his methods into their process. It was commissioned, edited, and published by a highly respected website devoted to arts criticism and journalism with a very wide readership in new music.

Artists writing about process and influence is not the same as self-generated PR material. Pieces like this are subject to editorial review and would not be published if they did not contribute significantly to the field. The fact that Dollshot was asked to contribute a piece in such a prominent new music space provides evidence to their notability.

True, ESOPUS is not a very significant source. I included it to verify a claim in the article, but if the community feels that it distracts from the overall claims to notability, then by all means the article would be better without it. I would have no problem with a community consensus to delete the source.

Regarding online versus offline sources: WP:OFFLINE states clearly, in boldface type, that there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. Offline sources can be verified; citing that an article uses offline sources is simply not an adequate reason for deletion.

In summary, these are significant, independent, reliable sources from third parties—not blurbs or primary sources in the usual sense. They are not from the mainstream press, but the band is not from the mainstream music scene. They are, however, quite notable sources in the experimental music culture to which Dollshot contributes. Mae2030 (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Mae2030 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment @Artaria195: You've been here less than a month, and the only thing you've been doing is spam spam and spam Wikipedia with your subject. Additionally, your removal of the deletion discussion template is an indicator that, at best, you may not have enough experience with Wikipedia and its notability guidelines. Combining that with Mae2030's handful of edits, conveniently about the same subject all but proves you two are related in some fashion. I don't see much point in rebutting each of your claims of notability, as they are all quite misled. I suspect your edits are driven by other means than neutrally contributing to Wikipedia. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 16:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drewmutt:, your original motion to delete cited non-reliable sources, and I have carefully addressed that concern in good faith, explaining how the sources—which are neutral, independent, professionally edited, and disinterested—are indeed reliable, verified, independent sources. Again, they are not mainstream sources, but they are quite important in the field of experimental music.

Your response has been to repeat your assertion with no further evidence or reasoning. As a deflection against having to back up your original position, you assert that all of my claims are misled, and you call my motives and neutrality into question. This feels more like a bullying tactic against a newcomer rather than a substantive discussion.

It is true that this is my first article, and that my previous edits—which I used to learn how to use Wikipedia—have been on the Wyschnegradsky page. My area of expertise is microtonal music, which is the point of connection between Wyschnegradsky and Dollshot. This is hardly disqualifying.

Please substantiate your original reasoning for moving to delete—non-reliable sources—and please address why my good faith rebuttal falls short of proving reliability. If my claims to notability are misled, please explain why for each claim. If the article is not neutral, please provide citations to prove so. Simply asserting your point of view should not constitute a valid argument for deletion. Mae2030 (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's first completely exclude the NewMusicBox article. It's not only written by the band, but it's not actually about the band, and in no article on this site would this be a source independent of the subject. Next, the WNYC soundcheck is six sentences long - it's not a terrible source, but it's not significant coverage. The Downtown Music Gallery Newsletter appears to be a self-published promotional newsletter for a music store, and the only non-print materials only show they released an album in 2001. The Napster article is also not significant: it consists of one run-on sentence about the band (the other sentence says the top 10 is actually 11) in which it calls the band obscure. It's already been noted the ESOPUS isn't a significant source. Keep in mind a band article must pass WP:SUBNOT, articles based primarily on what the artists say about themselves. Even assuming a couple sources may be significant, this article does not have enough quality sources available to demonstrate notability, and I say this having looked for alternative sources. In terms of the "notable label" argument, the label does not have an article on Wikipedia, and their catalogue on their website yields no notable bands. SportingFlyer talk 22:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At this point we have all agreed that at least some sources are significant. Of the offline sources, NYC Jazz Record and Red Hook Star Revue both have articles about the band. The Downtown Music Gallery Newsletter is a highly respected newspaper within the avant-garde jazz community and features a substantial write-up about the band. Sources like the NewMusicBox article are not meant to be the sole source of notability, but support an overall case for it. Again, one cannot ignore the fact that the band would not have been commissioned for this article had they not demonstrated notability within the field of new music. Each of these sources in the experimental and new music world are "non-trivial, reliable and independent". The fact that Dollshot was featured on Soundcheck is an example of an experimental band crossing over into mainstream music coverage, which again bolsters the case for notability. The prominence of this and the NPR feature clearly outweighs the word count (no other band received more words, this is simply the format of this style feature). At the time of the Jazz Critic's poll, the band was more obscure. As to your point about being #11, I'm not sure why that makes any difference, as Mr. Davis consciously included it on the Top Ten list ahead of a separate "runners up" category. Taken in whole, these sources show coverage from a wide array of major publications in the jazz, experimental, new music and popular music fields. To your point about the label, Underwolf has released work by Hampton Fancher (screenwriter of Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049, actor, director and subject of a highly regarded recent documentary), Mauro Pagani, David Tronzo and Anthony Coleman, all of whom are notable by wikipedia standards and have dedicated wikipedia pages. And they recently published a book by Ivan Wyschnegradsky (who also has a dedicated page) that is available in University libraries across the country. Artaria195 (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Artaria195[reply]

Please see WP:AADD specifically sections 4.2 and 4.11, where it states: "Critical commentary from reputable professional reviewers and prestigious awards are examples of short but significant (i.e. nontrivial) mentions that have been used to establish notability". Artaria195 (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Hook Star Revue is a concert announcement. [64] The Downtown Music Gallery Newsletter appears to be distributed via e-mail and typically for the purpose of selling records. [65] I cannot find the NYC Jazz Record online. Here's the Underwolf catalogue. [66] it appears the artists in the band are on at least seven of the eight records listed. It simply doesn't pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 06:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk about the main sources first. If the standard for notability is, per SportingFlyer, whether a source has an article on Wikipedia, we can start with NewMusicBox, John Schaffer's review on WNYC, Francis Davis, and ESOPUS magazine.

Regarding NewMusicBox, I respectfully, but strongly, disagree about excluding this source, for the reasons I have outlined above. It is not band-generated self-promotion, but a curated guest article about a subject of interest to a passionate, specialized audience. It is not all that different from an extended interview response: the band is answering, at length, a prompt provided by an editor, who has decided that publishing their words in full would be of great interest to his/her readership.

The stature of NewMusicBox demonstrates notability of the band, and the subject matter of the article places Dollshot in a unique strain of avant-garde music that reaches back to the cult figure of Wyschnegradsky. It provides crucial context for the band within a highly diverse experimental musical landscape.

Moving on to WNYC, the six sentences expand upon an audio feature that was broadcast widely on terrestrial radio, online radio, and podcasts. WNYC's weekly listenership is 1.1 million.[67] John Schaefer is a celebrated new music critic. All of this is significant, notable, verifiable, and independent.

The Francis Davis article was published on Napster and written in a certain idiom; it includes 11 bands in a Top 10 list to draw attention to the arbitrariness of list-making—we can debate the stylistic merits of the source elsewhere. Davis is a highly respected, award-winning authority in this corner of the musical world; to be featured by him is a marker of significance and artistic achievement.

Inclusion in ESOPUS demonstrates exactly the kind of coverage and attention from third-party, independent, verifiable, neutral sources that Wikipedia seeks. I said that it wasn't a significant source for another reason: it simply verifies a fact in the article—that Dollshot was included in ESOPUS—rather than providing editorial spin. It provides no significant commentary for this article, but it does provide proof of significance, in that Dollshot was chosen by this source which meets the standard of notability outlined by SportingFlyer.

At this point arguing about ESOPUS would be more an argument about improving the article, rather than about deletion.

So we have four main sources from third-party, verifiable critics/editors/platforms that all meet the standards of notability. Plenty of Wikipedia pages have fewer sources than that.

We can nitpick about the other sources (such as Downtown Music Gallery, NYC Jazz Record, Red Hook Star Revue) if we want. This is a specialized area of music. Among specialists, these are important sources and their imprimatur is known. This is not band-generated PR. Record store newsletters and neighborhood alternative papers can wield enormous influence in the avant-garde world. The general public may not have heard of them, they might not have online archives that are easily Googleable—that's totally fine, but not a reason to discount them out of hand. Mae2030 (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You completely misrepresent what I said and what the standard of notability is, which has nothing to do with whether a subject already has an article on Wikipedia: the standard is WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. I simply noted this as a showing their record label is also not notable. As I've outlined above, the sources are not good enough: NewMusicBox isn't independent of the subject, Esopus doesn't speak to notability at all as they just got their track on a CD included with the magazine, and the Francis Davis article literally included one sentence about the band. The WNYC blurb is a premiere of a track from their new album. Again, I can't find other decent sources that would cause me to argue for a keep, so please stop attempting to WP:BLUDGEON the process and let others vote on whether it's notable or not. SportingFlyer talk 16:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is bludgeoning here, and nobody is misrepresenting your points. You began with a blanket statement about the sources which was just not accurate ("all just blurbs and primary sources"), and I have made a patient, good faith effort to provide evidence to the contrary. Mae2030 (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After seeing that Dollshot released two new singles on Spotify, Swan Gone and She, I did a Google search to find their next show and came across this page. I'm new to edits on Wikipedia but felt inclined to make an account and comment, so please forgive me if I don't follow protocol exactly. As a huge fan of avant-garde music, I have seen Dollshot perform a number of times at reputable venues in NYC. Looking through the [WP:NMUSIC] guidelines and the sources cited on this page, especially through my lens of experience with this world of music, it is clear to me that the band is notable. The comments to the contrary in this discussion appear to come from an unfamiliarity with the press in avant-garde and outsider music scenes. I strongly encourage you to support the online presence of this band and other alternative art mediums; it would be a shame to see Wikipedia devolve to favor only mainstream music and media. Nilknarf711 (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Nilknarf711 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Artaria195 (talk • contribs).

Delete. SportingFlyer's analysis of the sources indicates that they do not sufficiently support the band's claim to notability. I am also concerned about the trio of apparent SPAs at this AfD - it seems unlikely at best that so many unconnected new editors would flock to this AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The coverage in Soundcheck is a step toward WP:MUSIC notability, but that's the only RS that gives any kind of depth-of-coverage that I can see. Close, but not quite. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curious—how about the NewMusicBox article? It shows the subject curated by a highly visible website that is independent, with no COI or vested interest in promoting the band. (True, of course, it is penned by the band, but it is not a press release or any other kind of self-promotion outlined in WP:IS; the context of NewMusicBox is neutral, and the editors would have commissioned the article because of the band's reputation in the field.) In the small world of new music / avant-garde music, this is a very big deal, akin to a guest editorship or an extended interview. Mae2030 (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated above, the article is not about the band, nor is an article written by any band member for any article independent of the topic of the band. It's not a reliable source for determining notability. SportingFlyer talk 18:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, you're repeating your assertions without addressing the argument. Imagine if Rolling Stone asked Frank Zappa to write an essay about Stravinsky's music and its influence on the Mothers of Invention. Such an article would clearly show Zappa's notability; Rolling Stone wouldn't give its pages over to just anybody. Scale this situation down to the world of new music / contemporary avant-garde music, and you've got the NewMusicBox/Dollshot/Wyschnegradsky source. Guest writing or editorship at a prominent publication is a clear marker of notability in the field. Mae2030 (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, our primary notability guideline is WP:GNG, which requires sources demonstrating notability to be independent of the subject. The NewMusicBox article is not. SportingFlyer talk 18:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. -- Dane ^talk 04:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some overlooked evidence for notability: WP:NMUSIC states in #6 that notability is achieved if an ensemble contains two or more independently notable musicians. Dollshot exceeds this standard with three of its members. Noah K has achieved notability by meeting #5 through two releases on the highly influential HatHut label, both of which were widely reviewed. (He also has a wikipedia page in German.) Drummer Mike Pride is clearly notable by WP:MUSIC standards. Cellist Kevin McFarland is a founding member of the JACK Quartet, generally acknowledged as the premier string quartet in contemporary avant-garde and new classical music. Mae2030 (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - current and additional Googled sourcing fails WP:GNG. The new album isn't even mentioned on Amazon, whereas almost every album I've ever looked up is there, at least as a stub. Dollshot's first album is there, with only one review, FWIW. Noah K's German article is almost completely unsourced, and the German Wikipedia's standards are notably lower than ours. Also, notability is not inherited - so a founder from a notable band can't go to a new band and automatically claim notability. The NewMusicUSA source is more about Wyschnegradsky. Finally, I know there's a guideline that says WP:OTHERSTUFF, which means you can't use other articles' existence to defend unrelated articles, but from a sourcing perspective, I like to see many or at least the majority of sources on Wikipedia themselves. Few of these sources are. The New York City Jazz Record has a stub article, so with one source it may not even survive AfD. The Big Takeover has an article, but it's also poorly sourced, as is Esopus (magazine). There needs to be more mainstream coverage for this to be a keep. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you TimTempleton for looking in to this more. I respectfully disagree with your points though. First off, all the singles from Dollshot's new album "Lalande" are in fact available on Amazon. Second, Amazon is a store not a source. Anyone can sell music through Amazon, that cannot be a criteria for notability. Noah Kaplan (who more recently began using the stage name Noah K) is a notable musician by WP:NMUSIC. He has been covered many times in all of the mainstream jazz publications (Downbeat, JazzTimes, All About Jazz etc.), has been featured in articles in major French and Italian and Greek music publications and has two albums on HatHut Records which is a major independent jazz label, distributed by Naxos. In regard to Dollshot, the band has been covered in mainstream media by mainstream music critics: WNYC's Soundcheck and NPR's "All Things Considered" are just that. So is the Napster Jazz critics poll, where Dollshot was featured by a very notable critic (Please see WP:AADD specifically sections 4.2 and 4.11, where it states: "Critical commentary from reputable professional reviewers and prestigious awards are examples of short but significant (i.e. nontrivial) mentions that have been used to establish notability"). But mainstream criticism cannot be the only source of notability, as the band is not a mainstream band and functions in a more niche community of experimental music. Is Wikipedia unwilling to look beyond the mainstream media now? The point is that Dollshot has been covered by mainstream and independent press so should satisfy WP:NMUSIC #1. On top of that, the band satisfies WP:NMUSIC #6, as Noah K(aplan), Mike Pride and Kevin McFarland are all notable musicians in the band. Can someone kindly respond to these points before deleting this article? I have made numerous good faith efforts to prove the variety and merit of these sources and have addressed three points in the WP:NMUSIC guidelines (#1, #5, and #6). Many of the arguments made against this article are of the variety "Dollshot is not notable because we say it's not", which does not adhere to the rigorous and democratic standards that Wikipedia represents.Artaria195 (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Artaria195[reply]
  - Artaria195 - I don't see the All Things Considered reference in the article, and don't see it on Google. My rule of thumb is that there should be at least 8-10 reliable sources, of which at least one is a profile in-depth enough to extract some biographical info. I just don't see that here. Ideally that would be a source that says when they started playing, and even what the name means. Absent that, we have no choice but to assume the omission is due to media disinterest. There are some exceptions to such stringent sourcing requirements, particularly with obscure religious figures from the middle ages, and plant hormones, but for music, especially modern music, obscurity that stems from being experimental doesn't help here. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - TimTempleton- Here is the link to All Things Considered: https://www.newsounds.org/story/weekly-music-roundup-july-10/. Does Wikipedia specify somewhere that there need to be 8-10 sources? If so, I imagine that would place a large number of existing articles in AfD discussion. But more importantly, Dollshot does have 8 sources. Whether the "Notes From Underground Article" passes muster as a top source is not important here. It opens with an editorial note by a very prominent music writer (who edits the entire NewMusicBox publication) that provides background and biographical information about the band so would fulfill the requirement you stated above. In regard to your other points, to my knowledge, the band has never specified what the word "Dollshot" means; though the Lucid Culture article cited does make an attempt to explain it. The Red Hook Star Revue, NYC Jazz Record, Big Takeover and Downtown Music Gallery (all independent, reliable sources) have additional biographical information. Again, this is all in regard to the band satisfying WP:NMUSIC #1. Dollshot also satisfies #6.
      - Artaria195 The 8-10 is my personal criteria, based on years of editing. Nobody will make that a standard, because there are too many other variables, but it works for me, particularly with CORP and BLP articles. The host for the newsounds link seems to have appeared on All Things Considered, but I'm not reading that this is actually that show. In any case, it shouldn't have to come down to verifying if one single source is or isn't good enough. I'm outside the New York experimental music scene, and never heard of any of the publications, but have edited over a hundred non-experimental music articles. The sourcing doesn't look good enough to me - we'll have to see what others think. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        TimTempleton- Thank you again for taking the time to look into this. Dollshot was absolutely featured on All Things Considered, and by John Schaeffer, an very notable music critic. If you listen to audio link on the New Sounds page you will hear the segment on All Things Considered. The player is also on the Soundcheck page, which is cited in the article. I am not claiming that that is the sole source of notability, but that is another of many sources, and undeniably a high profile source that helps make the case. As is the feature on Soundcheck itself. Whether or not you've heard of the other sources cannot be a criteria for notability either. If one takes the time to verify, they will see that all of these sources are independent, reliable and important in the jazz and experimental music world. Can you respond to the argument for Dollshot satisfying WP:NMUSIC #6? They exceed the guideline, with 3 members of the band (the guideline only requires 2).
        The article makes it seem like there are only two members of the band, neither of which are notable. I have no idea how #6 would possibly be satisfied. SportingFlyer talk 00:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        SportingFlyer - Noah Kaplan has two widely reviewed albums on HatHut Records (fulfilling WP:NMUSIC #5) and has been featured in national and international press. You state that he is not notable, but do not back this up with any evidence. Can you defend this position? Further, Mike Pride and Kevin McFarland are notable as well. If you accept that, then your argument is that the Dollshot article can be improved, not deleted. Both of these musicians are bandmembers, featured on Dollshot's new album. Artaria195 (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Artaria195[reply]
        I do not accept your reasoning. The first sentence in the article: Dollshot is an American indie-pop band, made up of husband and wife duo Rosie K (vocalist) and Noah K (composer/saxophonist). That's two members. The other members are simply "featured on the album," as you note. Furthermore, Noah Kaplan has received press, but you continually overstate his notability. Many of the sources I've seen that come up first are blogs and primary sources "Kaplan performed here." SportingFlyer talk 01:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        SportingFlyer - The article has been edited to better reflect the make-up of the band. Your generalization of sources for Noah Kaplan as "blogs and primary sources" is patently incorrect. First of all, by Wikipedia standards a google search is not enough to disprove notability (Please see WP:AADD section 4.2 where it specifically states that this argument should be avoided). Furthermore, Noah Kaplan meets the notability requirement of WP:NMUSIC #5, unless you want to try to argue that HatHut records is not a notable independent label. Please research this before attempting to argue this point. And lastly, a more thorough investigation of Noah Kaplan will turn up many more sources, but this is all beyond the scope of the current discussion. To reiterate yet again, Dollshot meets WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC #1 and #6, all of which make it notable by Wikipedia's own standards. No one has yet disproved this, and I and others have made countless good faith attempts to impart unbiased knowledge of these sources and this field according to the guidelines stated in Wikipedia. Please don't just level more accusations without evidence to support them. Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia for that matter) is supposed to be about facts, not the opinions of a certain group of self-appointed editors, who state in their arguments that they are not familiar with the field. Artaria195 (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Artaria195[reply]
        I've put in a good amount of research for this AfD and stand by the case I've made. SportingFlyer talk 04:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree that you've made a case against the sources, or Dollshot passing WP:NMUSIC #6, SportingFlyer, I am willing to accept that your mind will not be changed. Can someone with knowledge in the field of experimental music please review this AfD and properly research the sources, the band and the Wikipedia guidelines before the article on Dollshot is deleted? I believe this discussion got off on the wrong foot-- the initial comment is: "References currently point to non-reliable sources, falling quite short of WP:NMUSIC. A preliminary WP:BEFORE didn't unearth much more" which has been disproved with supporting evidence over and over throughout the whole discussion. Most of the "delete" votes simply claim to support the initial comments without even addressing or refuting the arguments, analysis and evidence to the contrary. Many of these votes would not pass WP:AADD, because they rely only on google searches or basically say "delete" without providing any evidence. So far, there does not seem to be a good faith attempt to keep this article, or even to understand the reasons and support contributors to it have provided. If researched at the level that an encyclopedia article demands, the sources will pass WP:GNG, as will the article's claim about the notability (by Wikipedia's own standards) of the band. If an unbiased editor/administrator who is familiar with this field and who has not yet weighed in could please review this article in regard to WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC #1 and #6 before it is deleted, that would be much appreciated. Artaria195 (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Artaria195[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 Aranyaprathet District#Stadium. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aranyaprathet District Stadium[edit]

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

Subject is not covered in-depth by any third-party reliable sources, thus failing the WP:GNG. Contested PROD, with suggestion to merge to Sa Kaeo F.C. However, there's no content worth merging, as the stadium is already mentioned in the target article. I'm proposing that this would not an appropriate redirect either, as the stadium is neither a likely search term for the football club, nor is it a subtopic. The club simply rented the stadium for a year back in 2010, and probably did not have exclusive use. If anything, it should be redirected to Aranyaprathet District, but that wouldn't work either as it is not mentioned there. Paul_012 (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, no evidence of notability. Eldumpo (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. To surmount the obstacle perceived by the deletion nominator, change the Aranyaprathet District article slightly to mention the district's stadium. We are obliged to find wp:ATDs; here is a good one. Call that a Merge if you like. --Doncram (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aranyaprathet District#Stadium section I just created with this stub info. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Caspary[edit]

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of an IP editor. Their rationale is:

Subject appeared in a few small films and was an extra in a couple large ones, but there's literally NO reliable coverage of this individual.[68] I didn't even find any passing mentions, rather just inclusion in databases like IMDb. Obvious WP:GNG fail. Article has slid under the radar for years, supported by crumbly self-published articles about businesses that don't even exist any more.

I'd appreciate if someone could nominate this for deletion, as I don't have an account and don't want to open one just for this. Thanks. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:190A:3502:884A:E0BD (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the matter, but of course I might put in a !vote of my own later. Reyk _YO! 07:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as suggester. There's just nothing about her, making for a patent GNG fail. I talked with another user at Afd yesterday who argued that her peak was "pre-internet", but really? Countless outlets have their historical articles online now, and there's still zero about this person. Many performers peaked pre-internet and yet have articles covering them (Danny Lloyd, Jeff Cohen, Charlie Korsmo etc.). 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:E4E0:7F41:22:B075 (talk) 10:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination counts as your delete vote so another vote is not permitted Atlantic306 (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many older newspapers of the 1980s/1990s are behind paywalls such as proquest, factia, newspapers.com etc and not available freely on the internet Atlantic306 (talk) 10:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are, but to think there's going to be significant coverage behind paywalls, when there is literally nothing about this person on the entire free internet, is an monstrous stretch. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:E4E0:7F41:22:B075 (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - Time and again at AFD sources can only be found behind paywalls Atlantic306 (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NACTOR with prominent main roles in Can't Buy Me Love (film) and the cult classic Mac and Me, this actress is pre-internet so a google search is not sufficient as there is likely to be press coverage and film magazine articles that are offline, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If being pre-internet so heavily restricts available referencing, then why is it no problem to come by articles about the aforementioned 80s actors?

Also, why are you editing her article to say she had "main" roles in films? Looks an awful lot like rigging to present her as a lead actor, which she never was. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:E4E0:7F41:22:B075 (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She had main roles in the two aforementioned films, and you are downplaying in the article which is the rigging. Also do you have a real world connection to the actress as you changed information regarding her husband ? Atlantic306 (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, you're now trying to frame me as someone who knows and personally dislikes the subject: your agenda is crystallised. You made a silly "pre-internet" argument yesterday, and now you don't want to lose face. WP:Wikipedia is not about winning. I removed marriage information because the article asserted that she married before she was born. Awful.

I'm rigging? Um, no: I'm pointing out that nothing has ever been written about this actor in the history of human language.

And yeah, supporting roles would be the commonly used term. "Main" suggests "lead". And you seem very determined to ram this in. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:E4E0:7F41:22:B075 (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Main role is a common term, and you seem very well acqainted with guidelines for a new user so are looking like a sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Utterly pathetic. "Main role" is so common that it doesn't even have a Wikipedia article, or redirect to anything (while leading actor and supporting actor, of course, have articles). You tried to frame me as someone with a personal agenda against the subject, and failed. Now you go for the ultimate "He's a sockpuppet"! straw-clutch. I ain't new pal - I've been editing here for over a year. And none of your face-saving desperation makes the subject in any way notable. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:E4E0:7F41:22:B075 (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with this. It seems to be a dynamic IP, thus changes regularly. If Atlantic306 has a reason for suspecting this IP to be a sockpuppet that goes beyond "this person's an IP and knows what they're doing", please take it to WP:SPI. Otherwise, they should drop this line of attack. That said, have you considered registering an account? You're under no obligation to, but being a dynamic IP has disadvantages like not being able to keep track of what you're doing, and nobody being able to leave a message on your talk page. Reyk _YO! 13:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - One of my earliest experiences on Wiki was having a painstaking article overhaul keep being reverted for no apparent reason. Other editors intervened and chided the reverter for being anti-IP, and ever since then I've been kinda striking a blow for the lowly IP, especially since we're supposedly welcome here. Maybe it's misguided: I probably will get an account eventually. Thanks for the advice. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:8454:B789:9482:ADB9 (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~possibly keep.~~ I admit to not being certain what the rule of thumb is for N:NACtor # "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films". In a proquest news archive search I can see her mentioned in multiple articles as having roles in Can't Buy Me Love (film), Mac and Me, ~~Earth to Echo.~~ Whether ~~three~~ 2 minor films suffice to pass "significant roles in multiple notable films"" I leave it to editors familiar with the usual threshold for NACTOR to judge. I found no feature stories about her or any SIGCOV in the news archive search on her name search, just articles about the films that credit her. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on second look, fails WP:BASIC. She has a couple of roles inminor films, and I cannot find any other reliably sourced information about her.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems relevant unfortunately as I have searched Google and its archive and found nothing approaching quality referencing. 82.132.238.238 (talk) 11:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has enough verifiable, named roles to pass based on WP:NACTOR for "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." It makes sense that it's difficult to find online citations for all the roles considering she stopped acting in the 1980s, but enough are verifiable to establish notability. Lonehexagon (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clearly passing WP:NACTOR verified by the references provided by Lonehexagon. Sro23 (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete. The reason that we have inclusion criteria like WP:NACTOR is because it lets us have a rationale for keeping subjects that could eventually turn into good encyclopedia articles full of interesting, readable prose. This subject maybe passes NACTOR with two lead roles in arguably notably important films, which just gets her nose over the bar of NACTOR. But the spirit of the guideline is not being met: our goal is to have an interesting prose article, and this is not one and possibly won't ever be. This article doesn't tell you anything that your brain won't infer from a glance at Ms Caspary's IMDB page. I'm sympathetic to the idea that there's loads of offline sources for this subject, and if someone comes back from the library with an armload of them, no one should stop you from re-creating the article. A Train^talk 08:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean our goal is to have an "interesting prose article"? What I find interesting, you may not. That's completely subjective. Sro23 (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- seems to sneak over the WP:NACTOR bar, but this only provides a rebuttable presumption of notability. As with all such notability guidelines it's expected that WP:N eventually be met. And after all this scrutiny it doesn't seem to be. Reyk _YO! 08:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Negative harmony[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. The term has been recently popularized on YouTube but is not discussed in reliable sources nor is the term used, as claimed, in Levy's Musical Theory. While the note progression described may be discussed elsewhere the term 'negative harmony' , to the best of my searching, is not outside of blogs, social media and Quora.(Note: this is a recreation of a previously article deleted by PROD for the same reason) Jbh ^Talk 16:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 16:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will add more reliable sources asap, and encourage those who are more well versed in the topic to do the same. I can rewrite it based on whether or not it truly is Levy's work, and describe it better. If it is not, it could be edited to fit this or be mentioned in another article relating to it. If it is, I will source it better or have it be turned into a redirect page for Ernst Levy. I would like it not to come to the latter of the options of each scenario, nor do I wish it to be deleted outright, but we shall see based on conclusions from further research. Pythasis ^Talk 13:16, 15 May 2018 (EST)

@Pythasis: It would not be appropriate to redirect the article to Ernst Levy because he did not use the term in Musical Theory (I checked) nor, as near as I can tell, did he, or anyone else, use the term negative harmony in any other reliable source. From what I have read the term has been made up by a guy on YouTube to describe this particular progression of notes. Possibly the concept has been discussed in reliable sources but the term has not so we can have an article on the term. Jbh ^Talk 17:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: After doing some research myself, you are right; it was made by a Youtuber, specifically Jacob Collier. Perhaps redirecting to him could be sufficient. I would not suggest this if it was from some non-notable individual, but Collier is an experience musician with two Grammy Awards who has worked with the likes of Hans Zimmer and Take 6. In short, I now agree that it is not deserving of a full article for its lack of reliability and its misunderstood nature, but I still think it is notable enough to warrant a redirect page for Collier. Pythasis ^Talk 13:42, 15 May 2018 (EST)

Until there is some mention of the term in reliable sources I would be opposed to that. Right now it is essentially a made up internet term. At a minimum there must be a reliable source which links the term and its use to Collier before a redirect would be appropriate. Without such a source there could be no discussion of negative harmony in the Collier article, since it would fail WP:V due to being unsourced, and without mention of the term in his article there is no justification for a redirect. Jbh ^Talk 17:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the term is the creation of a YouTube artist and the source he quotes does not reference the term; the article can be deleted under WP:DEL#6 ("Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions …") and/or WP:DEL#7 ("Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed"). I do not see the point of further relisting. Jbh ^Talk 04:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We still need input by more people: redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Sandstein: There is no policy compliant redirect target. No reliable source mentions Negative harmony in the context of Jacob Collier. He writes about it online and there are a lot of blog posts about it but no RS and nothing in his article that discusses the term. If the term is not mentioned in the article then it is not a valid redirect target and without a RS it can not be mentioned in the article.
Ernst Levy is not a valid redirect either. Collier claims Levy discussed it in Musical Theory but Levy never uses the term in the book – at least a search of the PDF I have of it does not find it. Maybe Levy discusses the concept which Collier used to derive the term but he does not coin Negative harmony as a term.
There are simply no reliable sources at all which discuss Negative harmony in general or as the particular note progression described by Collier. Someday it may get attention in the music theory literature but as of now, to the best of my knowledge looking for information both for this AfD and for when I PRODed the first version, there is nothing.
Without any RS deletion is not even a judgment call. The article fails WP:V and as a neologism fails WP:NOT before we even get to a discussion of notability. There are literally no policy compliant arguments for inclusion of this subject. Jbh ^Talk 06:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources have materialized in the past fortnight so it's not unreasonable to conclude that they aren't forthcoming. We should hold no prejudice against recreation if good sources do turn up eventually. A Train^talk 08:22, 31 May 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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

\Ceremonial counties[edit]

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

Information already present on Ceremonial counties of England#Ceremonial counties since 1997. Does not require a separate article. Diptanshu 💬 04:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:07, 30 May 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Ohr[edit]

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

I think the article should either be deleted per WP:ONEEVENT or merged into Nunes memo (or some other article). Also, it's a possible WP:BLP problems by giving undue weight to debunked passages of the Nunes memo and other primary sources. ^Falling_Gravity 04:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 04:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 04:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nominator evidently misses the point of ONEEVENT. The role of this person will be in the history books for generations. Editing out info because you don't like something is the wrong approach. Legacypac (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, what is this person's role? Having some sort of "contact" with Christopher Steele while working at the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force? That doesn't seem significant enough to be recorded in future history books. Also, the right approach is editing out false information, which is what I've been trying to do. ^Falling_Gravity 15:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bruce Ohr is a key player in one of the most significant events in United States political history.Phmoreno (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- ONEEVENT makes exceptions for events that are "highly significant". Like it or not, this was a big event that Ohr had a important role in. And the Nunes memo hasn't been "debunked". Even if the FBI had disclosed the source of the dossier, it would still not change the fact that it was the basis for the FISA warrant.--Rusf10 (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certain parts of the Nunes memo have been debunked, which the article previously regurgitated as the gospel truth. Whether or not the dossier was used in the FISA warrant is irrelevant to this article, especially considering that Ohr was not involved in the FISA process. ^Falling_Gravity 16:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 16:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The main point of the Nunes memo, that the FISA warrant was largely based on the Steele dossier, has been debunked quite firmly. It was only partially based on it, and in fact Carter Page had already been the subject of a FISA warrant before, and Republicans re-authorised renewals three more times. The dossier only reinforced information the FBI already had from other sources, and the fact that Ohr drank coffee with Steele is of no known significant consequence, except in some non-evidence based fever dream right-wing conspiracy theories from Hannity, repeated by Trump and Co. That the article depends on Fox as a source, and largely uses the debunked Nunes memo as a source, are two things that need to be fixed. We must use more reliable sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not start another one of these "Fox News isn't a reliable source" debates. The last time the issue was raised, the consensus was that it is an RS. What has the Nunes memo been debunked by? The democrat memo? And we all know who the "republicans" who reauthorized the renewals were, so why not name them? Comey and Rosenstein. However, the Bruce Ohr article doesn't get too in detail about the memo and simply states " Steele dossier was part of the basis for the FISA warrant". I think that already neutral wording sine you yourself said it was "partially based on it". And to FallingGravity , I don't think anyone said that Ohr was actually involved with the FISA warrant itself, so that's a strawman. What is relevant to the article is his involvement with Steele and his wife's involvement with Fusion GPS.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't enough any details on his involvement with Steele and his wife's involvement with Fusion GPS to support your claim that they're "highly significant" to the dossier or the Russia investigation. ^Falling_Gravity 07:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability established. Ohr and his role are an integral part of this historical event. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ford Focus. MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Focus Active[edit]

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

This article, Ford Focus Active, is a content fork from the Ford Focus article. The 'Active' is simply a variant of the Focus and is able to be covered on the Focus article. There is no need for additional pages for the same product, in this case the Ford Focus. Cameronmaher (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Ford Focus, as per nom -Mparrault (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ There is nothing that this can merge to, this is covered in the Ford Focus main page where it has first gen second gen etc. There isn't any information that isn't already in the Fourth Generation section. Cameronmaher (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron, I've struck this because your nomination will already be interpreted by the closing administrator as an argument to delete. You only get one. :) A Train^talk 08:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Ford Focus. If Cameronmaher is correct that there's nothing worth merging then just redirect, per WP:ATD-R. A Train^talk 08:16, 31 May 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Finn (actor)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jason Finn (actor)

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

The guidelines suggest that an actor should have significant roles in multiple films. Finn may have had a significant role in Freedom Writers, although not a top billed role by any means, but that is about it. The coverage of him is not adding up to indepth coverage, and nothing else comes close to being a significant role. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject clearly does not meet WP:NACTOR. A person with a very hard childhood as reported in the NYT article, and deserving many accolades. But not a Wikipedia article yet. There'll be time. -The Gnome (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable coverage other than the NY Times article. Definitely WP:TOOSOON to meet WP:NACTOR TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly does not meet the WP:NACTOR and the WP:GNG. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 18:07, 3 June 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

State Ballet Organisation under the invocation of Lidia Nartowska In Jarosław[edit]

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

Does not comply with the notability guidelines for organizations: WP:ORG. It is also a poor translation. Barbara ✐ ✉ 00:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of verifiable sources. Incidentally, the title is a mess that needs to be sorted (and shortened). -The Gnome (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This sounds like a subject that could plausibly have an article (if good references were present — they aren't) but the title is unsalvageable and not a useful redirect. A Train^talk 08:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mistborn#Magic. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Magic in the Mistborn series[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable WP:FANCRUFT with no encyclopedic basis - none of the references are specifically about magic in the Mistborn series, and the article simply pulls information from them. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a game guide if ever I've seen one. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 01:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a summary into Mistborn#Magic, as this is the main article for that section. While some of the material in this article strays into game guide material, the magic system is an undeniably important component of the Mistborn series and should be discussed summary style in the main article on the series. Book reviews and other secondary sources provide verifiable source material for this discussion. Per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, we should strive to preserve verifiable material where appropriate and Mistborn#Magic is a reasonable target for a summary discussion. --Mark viking (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very minor merge to Mistborn#Magic and redirect. This sort of content is pretty far outside Wikipedia's scope — it's what fan wikis are for. As such, any merge should be handled very judiciously. A Train^talk 08:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mistborn#Magic. It is a very important part of the series, but I think it could be covered in moderate detail in the main article without the need for this. All of the sources are either primary or covering the series (or one of the specific books) in a broader light. Also note that this isn't really a game guide - yes, there was a game, but the books are known far better. LittlePuppers (talk) 07:35, 2 June 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regroup[edit]

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes are is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/NorthernLad79 with few other contributions outside this topic. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements and lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Regrouping" refers to a step of moving units around in certain arithmetic algorithms. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Concur with nom that this meets neither WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:16, 31 May 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Piper[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No notable contributions to the genre. Award categories of "Best Male Newcomer" and "New stud" are not significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS. Most coverage is because of one award won it's WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NACTOR, — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOneWorkingAccount (talk • contribs) 09:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article totally lacks reliable source support.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Created by a likely paid editor, bereft of independent reliable sourcing, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought AVN was regarded as a reliable source? --John B123 (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When AVN announces its own awards, it is not an independent reliable source. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems different to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography's opinion here --John B123 (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG & all that shizz. –Davey2010^Talk 02:28, 1 June 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soonr[edit]

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes are is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A small amount of content might be eligible for merge into an Autotask article, the last attempt at that article was deleted for a copyright infringment.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~Redirect/Merge Autotask Corporation#Soonr.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May be prudent to relist pending outcome of WP:Articles for deletion/Autotask Corporation.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet NCORP, as K.e.coffman says. All of the cited coverage is routine biz journal stuff with nothing in-depth. I concur with Djm-leighpark that the best solution would a redirection to Autotask per WP:ATD-R but that article is a redlink so here we are. A Train^talk 08:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:05, 31 May 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy Games[edit]

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

Sources may not adequately prove notability:

Possibly local coverage. The author, also of dubious notability, lives in the small state of Massachusetts.
An e-bookstore listing.
The second book of the series.
An interview with the author.
Based on its article, the Golden Duck Awards does not seem to be one that confers notability on its winneres, let alone its nominees.
Appears to be a plot summary and not an actual review.

According to @E.M.Gregory, it appears to fail GNG (i.e. no better sources exist). [Source: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Penguins of Doom] –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my searches do not support notability for this book, Article is PROMO. Fails WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would love to be able to make an argument that the Golden Duck Award would satisfy NBOOK, but the subject didn't even win — it was just a finalist. A Train^talk 08:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Flintstones#Films and subsequent television series. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yabba-Dabba Dinosaurs![edit]

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

Seems like an ad Lemonpasta (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly sourced (as noted by the PRODder), WP:CBALL article. Just WP:TOOSOON. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge the key bits to Boomerang (TV channel)#Programming for now. I'm not seeing substantial coverage beyond the show's announcement. Probably an IAR argument could be made that the show is obvioualy going to be notable and it should be kept.. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to a new section in The Flintstones#Films and subsequent television series. Part of the cast is still TBA, and at least in a section of that article we can build it up into an article as information comes by. Also a note that this is airing on Boomerang's IPTV service, not the cable channel, which is why a redirect to the channel (which describes the service sparingly) would not work and be too vague. Nate • (chatter) 02:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge, per Mrschimpf. This could develop into a notable topic in months to come. Disclosure: I wrote Flintstones fan fiction as a child, well over 50 years ago. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge WP:TOOSOON as of now. Can be a section in the main Flintstones article for now, once cast and other details are announced it can have a page of its own. TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 11:57, 30 May 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.