< 16 November	18 November >

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beanpole (TV pilot)

[edit]

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

Non-notable pilot; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. References only contain mentions of pilot; no significant coverage to warrant standalone article. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Incredibly non-notable pilot only used to literally fill time on a July 4. Nate • (chatter) 01:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Szzuk (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedical, would you please explain why you didn't bother to notify me of this AfD or the prod? I didn't even realize the article was gone until a bot notified me that the logo wasn't used in any articles. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. TV pilots aren't automatically entitled to articles just because they existed, or even just because they went to air as one-off specials. Per WP:TVSHOW, a pilot can qualify for an article on that latter basis if it can be well-sourced over WP:GNG as having gotten substantive media and/or award attention, but getting a pilot over that bar requires quite a bit more than just being able to provide technical verification that it existed — for example, Gavin Crawford's Wild West was a failed pilot that aired as a one-off special and got Canadian Screen Award nominations out of it, and thus got a Wikipedia article because of the award nominations rather than just because it existed. Bearcat (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. ShunDream (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NTV. Some people get upset when stuff like this is deleted from Wikipedia. They demand that the info be here for whomever might look for it. But Wikipedia is not the place to look for everything on cinema and TV. It's an encyclopaedia; not a TV almanac. -The Gnome (talk) 14:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dial911 (talk) 17:51, 24 November 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Néstor Barron

[edit]

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

Tagged with multiple issues since January, promotional (hugely so) and almost certainly COI, no relaible independent sources and none in Google either, just PR and similar non-RS. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promo, refs don't support notability. Szzuk (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coment - Hi, Guy. I am not experienced on edition of articles at Wikipedia, and even my english it's no so good. I really would estimate so much if you were saying to me, point by point, the problems with this article. If you do that, I'm sure that I can improve the article in the way Wikipedia wants. Barron is a really well known artist in my country (Argentina), and I wouldn't want to think that for this reason an article in English language it's worthless and must be deleted. Please tell me what's needed and I'll give you the answers for every point of discussion (sources, doubts about promo's accusations, etcetera). Help me, please. I want for your answer, thanks so much. Majofontaner (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majofontaner (talk • contribs) 17:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is promotional in tone and the subject does not meet the notability criteria for musicians at WP:MUSICBIO or for writers/poets at WP:AUTHOR. - tucoxn\^talk 20:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coment, tucoxn, why do you think that this person is not important? Check out, for instance, this article from TELAM, the Argentina's official news agency: https://issuu.com/suplementostelam/docs/slt222?workerAddress=ec2-54-159-254-162.compute-1.amazonaws.com, or this other from an important argentinian newspaper: http://www.diariopopular.com.ar/notas/245427-hoy-se-escribe-pensando-internet, or this other: https://www.pagina12.com.ar/75570-la-poesia-siempre-interroga-a-la-sociedad-y-a-la-politica . One of his books have a prologue by Osvaldo Bayer, a well-known intellectual recognized all along South America and in Europe. Another of his books have a prologue by Liam Clancy, legend of Irish traditional music. And so on. Do you think that he's not an important person just because he don't write in english? One more time: please let me improve this article according Wikipedia criteria, and please help me with the job because I don't know so much about it. Majofontaner (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Majofontaner, You need to show that this person is notable according to the Wikipedia definition, that is, that he has "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."WP:BASIC Then, for authors and musicians, there are specific requirements, WP:AUTHOR and WP:MUSICBIO. For authors, there need to be "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The Suplemento Literario is an example of that. It should be included as a reference in the article. For musicians too, it has to be shown that he "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." This does not include interviews where the person just talks about themselves, so the Diario Popular is not useful. It is not useful that his books have prologues by notable people. It would be better to find reviews of his books by people who are not connected to him, and include them as references in the article. Also, the article needs references from reliable sources WP:RELIABLE for all the information. IMDB is not a reliable source. I do not find his name at all in either of the Poètes à Paris references, so they are not useful. I am not sure whether the archived Guy Allix page would be considered either reliable or independent. Some of the External Links might be useful as references, though the articles in La Nacion do not seem to have much about Barron at all, they just mention him in a sentence, which means it is not significant coverage. I hope this helps. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:31, 24 November 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Luthra

[edit]

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

Nominating on behalf of an IP user, their reasoning follows. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-notable person, non-notable sources and has had previous articles continually deleted for non-notable sources. Paid also for this wiki article 5:20 am, Today" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.21.43 (talk • contribs)

Delete I have had this speedily deleted before. Fails WP:GNG. "involved in the blockhchain and cryptocurrency space" - that should tell you enough. Promotional spam. Edwardx (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if it has been speedy deleted before, could it do so again? I see no notability here Spiderone 13:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - the references currently visible in the article doesn't seem notable but a quick Google search shows coverage from Forbes, CoinTelegraph, The New Indian Express, Digital Journal, International Business Times, and few more. Maybe the draft needs to be revised. What say? Csgir (talk)

Delete Mostly paid pieces provided as sources. This is a WP:ADMASK ShunDream (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --1l2l3k (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The Digital Journal reference is about the Aargos and not its creator; New Indian Express has an article about Almora and not its co-founder; and the CoinTelegraph is not a source that carries much weight. The rest are mostly primary sources. We have only a couple of reliable sources with something dedicated to the subject: Forbes (here) and International Business Times (here). In short, this is too lame yet. -The Gnome (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some references on google news search are reliable but the coverage isn't significant. Whereas if the coverage is significant it's either interview or a press release. I think it should be deleted as of now, may be in future we can get some solid sources (which I think we will get). Dial911 (talk) 17:56, 24 November 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Day Dreamer Interactive

[edit]

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

Article on a corporation has had zero (0) sources for the preceding 9 years.

A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google Books, Google News) finds no references to the company other than the date/publisher lines in the company's own book(s).

The WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG is not established. WP:CORPDEPTH is not demonstrated. Chetsford (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searches are not finding WP:RS coverage independent of the company and its owner. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination on account of subject lacking verifiable notability. -The Gnome (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails per NCORP. Dial911 (talk) 17:57, 24 November 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earl M. Monson

[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. The obituary in The Salt Lake Tribune ([1]) provides some coverage, but various WP:BEFORE searches are only providing passing mentions, name checks, quotations and content consisting of the subject acting as a spokesperson. The remaining sources in the article are primary or unreliable, which do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a search turned up nothing in terms of RS.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 14:18, 24 November 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. postdlf (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indie Royale bundles

[edit]

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

It's a case of WP:NOTCATALOGUE from a defunct site with no references. Jamesbuc (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTCATALOGUE and unsourced. Ajf773 (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I made this over two years ago as a split from Indie Royale as the list was getting too big for the main article. I don't really care what the outcome is. Anarchyte (talk | work) 01:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per same WP:NOTCATALOG arguments as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Humble Bundles (2nd nomination). Completely unsourced and thus no significance is given why each and every sale is to be included. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 13:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know much about the notability guidelines of this type of list but i couldn't find any sources. ShunDream (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Though the list could be useful, it is unsourced. Dial911 (talk) 18:01, 24 November 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. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths of Tala and Rotana Farea

[edit]

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

This event received significant coverage when it occurred two weeks ago but has received almost no additional coverage in the last week, indicating it is a routine news event with fading significance. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. Chetsford (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RAPID and revisit in a year. Noting that coverage has been INDEPTH; national and international; and far from routine crime reporting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also per WP:RAPID. And indepth coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Nom Just a quick note. First, I did a count and, if one is just doing a search on Google News and seeing a lot of hits, it should be noted that 94% of these are the same syndicated AP story. In fact, even several of the sources in the article itself are just the same AP story published on different sites. Second, 89% of all coverage occurred over a two day period (November 10-11). Third, there has been no further coverage of this news event since November 13. Chetsford (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the geographic extent and depth of the reported - non wire service - stories has been far beyond ROUTINENewsweek: Saudi Arabia Denies Involvement in Mysterious Death of Sisters in New York; CNN: [2]; Washington Post: [3], & [4], & [5]; New York Times: [6], [[Neew York Post]: [7]; [[New York Times]: [8], just to cite a few of the reported storues. and, yes, there were AP stories that got echoed widely. But the reported stories (The Guardian: [9],) ran in so many major outlets that this does meet the WP:NCRIME indicators WP:INDEPTH, WP:DIVERSE, WP:GEOSCOPE (The Telegraph: [10], Al Jazeera: [11],) and many more reported stories in major media. That said, I am quite willing to revisit this in a year. But I continue to think we should Keep not only because WP:RAPID, but because it arguably meets WP:CRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, seems reasonable, I'll buy that. Changing !vote to Keep and withdrawing nom. Chetsford (talk) 17:10, 20 November 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

High Resolves

[edit]

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

WP:PROMOTIONAL (e.g. "Each module and year level of our programs can be run effectively") article on a not notable company. Only source in article is to a government charity directory. A basic BEFORE (JSTOR, Google News, Google Books, newspapers.com) fails to find anything more than a smattering of passing mentions that don't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—I've added a handful of citations and pretty much revised the entire article. I'm reasonably sure that there will be more that can be found by people with access to Australian media, education-focused publications, or civics/moral education literature. I did check The Chronicle of Higher Education and found no mentions, but this publication is largely US-oriented, I believe. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Justinohare and Ceyockey are the two main contributors to the contested article. -The Gnome (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your work on this article. I have to respectfully disagree that it passes the GNG, however. We now have eight sources, half of which are from the website of the McNulty / Aspen Foundation. Of the remaining five, one is a press release, one is a corporate registry listing, two are from the website of an advertising contest (good-design.org). The book seems fine but it, alone, can't establish notability. I find nothing else in BEFORE and I have access to Australian media, education-focused publications, and civics/moral education literature. Chetsford (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep— I'm Terrable as I find subjects that are missing from Wiki but I am never able to put them up in a way that they are prevented from being deleted. Thank you for your help in fixing up this page. This not for profit has been around for a while and has won some big awards recently. As this is a small Australian based organisation it has gone under the radar of much of the press as User:Ceyockey points out. (Justinohare) 12:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"As this is a small Australian based organisation it has gone under the radar of much of the press" Then it doesn't meet our notability requirements. A notable company is, by definition, not one that has "gone under the radar." The fact it does good deeds, unfortunately, doesn't matter. Our standards of notability are the same whether a company is for-profit or non-profit; whether it's good or bad. High Resolves has to meet the same notability criteria as Wynn Casino and R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. Merely proving it exists is not sufficient to prove it's notable. Chetsford (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sufficient references to support WP:NEXIST to support GNG. For example, on top of those already stated, here is a journal article, here is an international reference, here is support by a senior federal politician and the University of Melbourne, and there are quite literally dozens of strong mentions by individuals schools using the programme. These are all very easily WP:BEFORE found. Aoziwe (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "journal article" is by Terry Robb, the organization's founder, and is not WP:INDEPENDENT. The "international reference" is a press release. I stopped checking there, didn't seem like much point to continue. Chetsford (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But are you saying that the journal article has not been peer reviewed in any way or not been subjected to any editorial over view? The vast majority of all journal articles are by definition written by people with a critical and reputational stake in the content? And what is wrong with the press release. It is not by the High Resolves people. It is by two independant parties, both of each other? and of High Resolves? Aoziwe (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"are you saying that the journal article has not been peer reviewed in any way" That's exactly what I'm saying. Despite the fact the NLA has labeled it a "journal" Ethos is (was) actually a popular magazine and it had no peer review process. An op-ed by the founder of an organization is not WP:RS for coverage of said organization. "And what is wrong with the press release." If you're !voting at AfD you should already know the answer. Anyone can write and issue a press release. It has no more reliability than a Facebook post. I can write a press release about my neighbor's cat tomorrow and pay $750 to post it to Globenewswire, PRNewswire, or Businesswire; my neighbor's cat doesn't now qualify for a WP article. Chetsford (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but are you referring to the correct publication? There are at least three Ethos "magazines" I think. The NLA cited publication is ISSN 1448-1324 which is this one? The press release is by an independent organisation having given an award to the subject. What does it matter what the mechanism is? Surely it is the organisation behind the press release that matters? Would you discount a press release by say the National Academy of Sciences or The Royal Society about an award they had given? Are you saying that the McNulty Foundation and the Aspen Institute are unreliable? (The press release is not by the subject of the article.) I agree with the principles you are referring to but it seems we might not be referring to the same objects in applying those principles? Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Sorry, but are you referring to the correct publication." Yes. "The press release is by an independent organisation having given an award to the subject. What does it matter what the mechanism is?" See WP:SELFPUBLISH for our policies regarding self-published sources. Chetsford (talk) 19:50, 19 November 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. WP:PAG based arguments come down in favor of deletion with no PAG arguments presented to the contrary. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St Ambrose's Episcopal Church (Antigo, Wisconsin)

[edit]

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

WP:MILL. A WP:BEFORE search finds nothing to assert notability. Also, per rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Anne's Episcopal Church (De Pere, Wisconsin) Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every parish church is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the church is over 100 years old. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. There is no policy or guideline here that equates old age with notability, at least not in Wikipedia. Almost the whole text is unsourced, original work. -The Gnome (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable source book coverage already in the article and is of architectural interest as an historic building, age is a relevant factor in building articles, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep Age should be considered for buildings and monuments. Had it been an article about a person, I would have voted as delete. But a church and that too 100 years old should be considered to remain in encyclopedia. Hopefully, some references can be added by someone in the future. Dial911 (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dial911: @Atlantic306: I'm open to reversing my stance if other guidelines show it should stay, but I haven't found them yet after searching. I looked at WP:NCHURCH and WP:NBUILD, and it fails both. Both hinge on GNG, which this page fails. The only non-trivial source I could find was the book already cited on the page. However, that book is published by the overseeing religious administration, and is therefore not independent and does not show notability. Per NBUILD (emphasis added): "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." I checked for said sources and couldn't find any. If there are, please feel free to add them and I may well reconsider my choice to AfD this article.

Delete It fails GNG as per my search just now. Google news showed nothing. Normal search resulted in bogus user generated sources like yelp, manta etc. I was concerned about this building's century-old legacy. However, we shall go by the policies in effect on Wikipedia. Dial911 (talk) 20:06, 24 November 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E. Beatrice Riley

[edit]

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

Non-notable supercentenarian. She received a couple letters of congratulation when she got super old... and yeah, that's it. No sources, and since her name is not a likely search term it wouldn't make sense to redirect. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and there are no other claims to notability. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article blatantly fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft about her family and stuff like she could bend over. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on List of supercentenarians by continent, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The only coverage this person received was because of her reaching an advanced age. Her age is notable, not her life or deeds. Hence her placement among the oldest Oceanian people ever is sufficient for recording notable facts in this encyclopedia. — JFG ^talk 09:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from the fact that she was super old there is nothing else here, having an independent page won't work but as suggested above adding to oldest Oceanian people ever would suffice. ShunDream (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dial911 (talk) 18:10, 24 November 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North American Film Awards

[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG.Award-spam. ∯WBG^converse 18:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and keep the text in draft form as the subject may possibly get traction in the coming years. -The Gnome (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draft move to draft as above, until more sources are available, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage of the award itself found. Dial911 (talk) 18:11, 24 November 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wolferos Productions

[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. References given are insufficient (Reddit, YouTube, fleeting mentions). Was one of 10 "Mods of the Year" on the ModDB website but did not win the top spot. Google search comes up with 85 unique results. ... discospinster _talk 18:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There might be scope for something on the mod somewhere down the road (a list entry?), but I think this is a plain Delete. Possible sources for the former include a few hits on Kotaku: 1, 2, 3. --Izno (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NCORP and also I happen to find WP:NVG quite useful. -The Gnome (talk) 14:39, 24 November 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2008 United States EPA fuel economy ratings

[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not reference source nor is it a repository of all knowledge. List is not notable Rogermx (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia actually is a reference work by definition, so that's a curious assertion. But I do think a valid nomination could be made for this page, perhaps as WP:RAWDATA, so maybe you could just elaborate and talk about the content specifically. We also have List of 2009 United States EPA fuel economy ratings, which should be considered together with this, and there are a few from other countries probably subject to the same argument. It's always a good idea to look at related content before listing anything for deletion. postdlf (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other bad stuff already existing on Wikipedia offers no justification for more bad stuff to appear. See WP:OSE. -The Gnome (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve misunderstood my comment. postdlf (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTIINFO and Wikipedia isn't an auto buyers guide, even if the content was relevant ten years ago. Also consider these three articles to the discussion: List of 2009 United States EPA fuel economy ratings, List of 2008 New Zealand fuel economy ratings, List of May 2008 UK fuel economy ratings. Ajf773 (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject lacking encyclopaedic purpose. There's a significant number of things that Wikipedia is not. Most of us probably need to refresh our memory on WP:NOT. -The Gnome (talk) 14:43, 24 November 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. Wp:Snow (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Ortega Leguias

[edit]

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

Speedy deletion had been proposed yet not properly done. So I’m proposing deletion of this completely non notable footballer with no reliable sources found. Trillfendi (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTY having represented Panama in a senior international fixture. Kosack (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Playing international football passes WP:NFOOTBALL, to quote GiantSnowman, article needs improving not deleting. Govvy (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject has represented his country at senior international level, thus passing WP:NFOOTY, and there seems to be a reasonable amount of RS coverage at non-trivial level to suggest a GNG pass even at my limited free-online access to Panamanian media. Incidentally, the nomination refers to an incomplete speedy deletion: I see no sign of any such thing in the article history. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Struway2: At first glance it appeared to be speedy but it was some type of incomplete deletion proposal. Trillfendi (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi:. That's a WP:BLPPROD: surprised you haven't come across one before. Its function is to ensure that biographies of living persons don't stay unsourced for long, either by deleting the article that remains unsourced for a time period or by encouraging the addition of a reliable source, in which case the article cannot be deleted by this method, which is what happened here. It wasn't incomplete. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty for WP:GNG under the search term Sergio Ortega; scored the first-ever goal for Plaza Amador in the CCL. SportingFlyer talk 02:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY through his Panamanian caps. 21.colinthompson (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep couldn't put it better than @Govvy:. Giant Snowman 16:03, 18 November 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. This one is not cut and dry and I came close to calling it a no consensus, but I think the arguments and sourcing presented are sufficient. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gridcoin

[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)).

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable cryptocurrency. Almost all references are primary, crypto blogs or directory sites - there's one RS and two academic references that aren't just passing mentions (I removed a pile of passing mentions from "Further reading"). WP:BEFORE shows nothing further in RSes or in peer-reviewed academic coverage. I'd expect it to have more, given the BOINC links - but I can't find any. This was deleted at AFD in 2015; this 2016 recreation doesn't improve matters - David Gerard (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's sources below (updated comment Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)) or merge to Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing. While Gridcoin may be notable on its own for its take on the proof-of-research and constant block reward alternatives to other cryptos' proof-of-stake mining methods, Gridcoin is inextricably linked to BOINC and could just have an expanded section there. (COI note: I participate in BOINC and mine Gridcoin myself) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it even worth noting in the context of BOINC, though? - David Gerard (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it's at least as notable as an individual BOINC project (some of which have their own Wikipedia page), since Gridcoin has roughly just as much participation and external references as some of the larger BOINC projects. So I support at the very least a mention in the BOINC article. (COI note: I also participate in BOINC and mine Gridcoin myself) MaxwellMolecule (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - That doesn't really answer the question - individual BOINC products aren't automatically considered notable. Do we have the RSes about Gridcoin to even note it in another article? - David Gerard (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few, I had some open on another computer that I'll have to find again later. In the recent commentary on the energy requirements of proof-of-work cryptos, Gridcoin is one of the alternatives that is mentioned often, because of its connection with distributed computing through BOINC. Solarcoin is another, though that article was deleted (see Draft:Solarcoin for deletion log). They tend not to be passing mentions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I agree reliable sources is ultimately what it comes down to. I suggest we allow a short amount of time for anyone to point out sources that have not yet been included. I don't want to let the axe fall too quickly. MaxwellMolecule (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very weak sourcing, not clear what people actually do with this so-called coin. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Smallbones' comments here. I'm not seeing sourcing that really would establish WP:DUE for even a merge or redirect, much less GNG. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gridcoin is an important cryptocurrency that addresses the waste of energy in Bitcoin. Gridcoin rewards users if they spend electricity to good causes like cancer and Ebola research. hb9tvm (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- None of these are evidenced in reliable sources, though. None of this is a policy-related reason to keep - David Gerard (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I want to come back to this tomorrow -- I'm putting together a list of candidate sources so we can see where we stand. So let's give it a little more time. MaxwellMolecule (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing. This is my recommendation based on the sources I was able to find. They are listed below, but unlikely to be exhaustive since I didn't spend a ton of time searching. There were also some academic sources that looked promising but had paywalls. Not sure what to do about that. NOTE: While not completely disregarding my own analysis, I would very much prefer to hear the reasoned opinion of someone with no vested interest for or against cryptocurrencies. If someone here can confirm minimal bias, that would be extremely beneficial. I acknowledge I have some bias, and it sounds like some other people on this talk page do too.
- https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/woot17/woot17-paper-grothe.pdf (In depth, critical, academic analysis. Seems to me a pretty solid source)
- https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Bitcoin-Unlocking-Digital-Cryptocurrencies/dp/1449374042/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1542824247&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=Mastering+Bitcoin%3A+Unlocking+Digital+Cryptocurrencies+1st+Edition (academic source: short encyclopedic-like entry on Gridcoin)
- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-11/bitcoin-seen-addressing-power-hog-problem-with-prime-number-find
- https://finance.yahoo.com/news/state-distributed-computing-cryptocurrency-101908849.html (characterized as 'one of the best-known modern solutions' in the area of distributed computing)
- https://www.sciencesetavenir.fr/high-tech/gridcoin-la-crypto-monnaie-qui-offre-de-la-puissance-de-calcul-aux-chercheurs_120311 (in French, but seems to have some independent critique -- more than just a passing mention)
- https://www.inc.com/magazine/201811/amy-webb/donate-processing-power-gigware-hack.html
- https://singularityhub.com/2017/12/31/9-ways-you-can-use-your-devices-for-advanced-scientific-research/#sm.0001qk8f6nmq8fr4pdl2qfy6vci27 (I am familiar with SingularityHub and can confirm they have no direct relation to cryptocurrencies)
- https://read.wisconsinengineer.com/gridcoin-and-boinc-crowdsourcing-scientific-discovery-cf2728a187a1 (contains a small amount of independent and critical analysis)
- https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/putting-the-blockchain-to-work-for-science-gridcoin-1400747268/ (I don't think cryptocurrency news sites should be excluded outright. The crypto-space is large enough that someone can have a vested interest in crypto as a whole, but still be independent of any one particular coin. [To be clear, I'm not disputing the stance that sources from outside the crypto space are preferable.])
- https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/crypto-exchange-poloniex-dumps-eight-underperforming-coins/ (another crypto news site)
- https://cointelegraph.com/news/gridcoin_using_the_blockchain_for_good (another crypto news site) ------ MaxwellMolecule (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Crypto blogs are not usable as evidence of notability, per many a long-winded WP:RSN discussion. You don't get to try to impeach other editors' opinions in advance - David Gerard (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would like to raise the issue of your own bias on the matter: https://www.amazon.com/Attack-50-Foot-Blockchain-Contracts-ebook/dp/B073CPP581 - as an author with books currently for sale and a self-proclaimed crypto expert (can source this if necessary) who is openly hostile to cryptocurrency and blockchain in general, it is an obvious WP:COI for you to directly edit cryptocurrency articles, much less be nominating cryptocurrency articles for deletion. You stand to gain financially and reputationally by damaging cryptocurrencies directly or otherwise, and per the COI guidelines you should restrain yourself to suggesting edits on talk pages.2A02:A210:2C04:1D00:F180:5AA:495E:A8A1 (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC) — 2A02:A210:2C04:1D00:F180:5AA:495E:A8A1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      - It turns out that's not what "conflict of interest", let alone WP:COI mean. It turns out that drive-by SPAs don't help deletion discussions - David Gerard (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for your non-denial and snark. Fortunately, you are neither arbiter of the English language, nor the final judge of whether this article should be deleted. I raised your very real conflict of interest both by English and WP:COI standards precisely so that other readers, editors, and administrators are aware of your external interest and stakeholdership in the matter both here and elsewhere on Wikipedia as you pursue your relentless campaign to damage and discredit cryptocurrency projects while gaining personal financial and reputational benefits from doing so. This article contains several RSes by your own admission, and your subjective, hostile, self-interested opinion that it is a non-notable cryptocurrency does not override its interest as a topic and article to other people or its satisfaction of the as-written, objective requirements for WP:Notability. This is a strong keep. 2A02:A210:2C04:1D00:F180:5AA:495E:A8A1 (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC) — 2A02:A210:2C04:1D00:F180:5AA:495E:A8A1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
        If you're so sure it's a "very real conflict of interest", you know where WP:COIN is. And your "keep" is clearly not policy-based - per the template at the top, this discussion is not a ballot - David Gerard (talk) 07:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Chill, I'm new to this side of Wikipedia and wasn't aware of that discussion. I wasn't trying to impeach anyone. I wasn't really talking about establishing notability, more just reliable information. And I didn't say the sites I listed were in fact appropriate. Just that they shouldn't be excluded outright only because they report primarily on crypto. If bitcoinmagazine and cointelegraph aren't reliable, then just say so. MaxwellMolecule (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Antonopoulos, Andreas M. (2014). Mastering Bitcoin: Unlocking Digital Cryptocurrencies. Sebastopol, California: O'Reilly Media. p. 226. ISBN 978-1-4919-2198-2. Retrieved 2018-11-21.
  The book notes:
  Gridcoin
  
  Gridcoin was introduced in October 2013. It supplements scrypt-based proof of work with subsidies for participation in BOINC open grid computing. BOINC—Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing—is an open protocol for scientific research grid computing, which allows participants to share their spare computing cycles for a broad range of academic research computing. Gridcoin uses BOINC as a general-purpose computing platform, rather than to solve specific science problems such as prime numbers or protein folding.
  - Block generation: 150 seconds
  - Total currency: No limit
  - Consensus algorithm: Proof-of-work with BOINC grid computing subsidy
  - Market capitalization: $122,000 in mid-2014
2. Käsbauer, Christoph; Timm, Jan-Frederik (2018-03-12). "Effizientes Mining: Kryptowährungen für einen besseren Zweck". de:ComputerBase (in German). Archived from the original on 2018-11-22. Retrieved 2018-11-22.
  According to de:ComputerBase is a German online magazine founded in 1999.
  From Google Translate:
  Gridcoin for the one who supports the science
  
  One of them is Gridcoin. The network participant responsible for the next block is determined by the remainder of the network, based on the amount of its gridcoin combined with the time it has already spent verifying the blockchain. For the compensation, 50,000 newly created gridcoins are available per day. However, these are not simply paid out to the active or passive users, they only get one share as an interest rate. The bulk, on the other hand, is distributed to members who make their own computing power available to science.
  This is made possible by the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC), a decentralized network of the University of Berkeley, which sends small work packages for calculation to the participating computers. The gridcoin blockchain compensates for these calculations by paying out the Gridcoin generated by PoS, based on the processing power provided.
  Gridcoin is thus relying on an energy-efficient block chain for the management and verification of the means of payment, the participants of which, however, do not have to work on their participation in the banking system, but on charitable work in scientific projects. The currency can then either be exchanged or sold on trading platforms or used to promote projects within BOINC. The projects supported by BOINC and Gridcoin include very computationally intensive scientific projects such as the analysis of space data or finding new agents against diseases.
3. Olleros, F. Xavier; Zhegu, Majlinda, eds. (2016). Research Handbook on Digital Transformations. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 241. ISBN 978-1-78471-775-9. Retrieved 2018-11-22.
  The book notes:
  
  Gridcoin
  
  Drawing on the Bitcoin protocol and an open source middleware system for volunteer and grid computing, the Berkeley Open Infrastructure Network Computing Grid, or BOINC (http://boine.berkeley.edu/), the blockchain finds an unexpected application with GridCoin, a peer-to-peer Internet-based crypto-currency that aims to provide real benefits in humanity by compensating miners for participating in BOINC projects, leading to advances in medicine, biology, climatology and astrophysics by redirecting the computational power towards BOINC research. The blockchain's most famous application generates unnecessary heat and wasted power for the proof-of-work algorithms. ...
4. Sermondadaz, Sarah (2018-01-30). "Gridcoin, la crypto-monnaie qui offre de la puissance de calcul aux chercheurs". fr:Sciences et Avenir (in French). ISSN 0036-8636. Archived from the original on 2018-11-22. Retrieved 2018-11-22.
  According to fr:Sciences et Avenir, Sciences et Avenir is a French magazine founded in 1947. It is part of Claude Perdriel's Perdriel Group.
  From Google Translate:
  Created in 2013, the gridcoin is based on the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC), a research platform developed by the University of Berkeley (USA). Many scientific publications, both in the field of climate and astrophysics or medical research, have already benefited.
  ...
  The system combines a classic cryptocurrency, the gridcoin, with the BOINC distributed platform that will assign each transaction a scientific calculation to achieve. Note that it is also possible to participate voluntarily in the project by installing the software BOINC (in English), without using a gridcoin. The computing power of your computer will simply be exploited when it is idle. Hosted projects include Seti @ home, a historical program designed to detect a hypothetical extraterrestrial signal by pooling thousands of computers. The challenge is to provide (free) research labs with computing power that is not concentrated in a single supercomputer, but distributed among thousands of individual workstations. On average, in January 2018, the network can deploy the power of 21,364 petaflops (more than 21 million billion operations per second).
5. Godart-van der Kroon, Annette; Vonlanthen, Patrik, eds. (2018). Banking and Monetary Policy from the Perspective of Austrian Economics. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Science+Business Media. p. 266. ISBN 978-3-319-75816-9. Retrieved 2018-11-22.
  The book notes:
  
  It would not be possible to go through these exhaustively in this chapter, but some of the more interesting currencies include Gridcoin which arose from science departments at the University of California at Berkeley; with Gridcoin by offering spare computational resources from a home computer people are in turn rewarded in newly created coins; the computation donated is used for scientific research in biology, physics, and mathematics.
6. Rothstein, Adam (2017). The End of Money: The story of bitcoin, cryptocurrencies and the blockchain revolution. Boston: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-85788-974-1. Retrieved 2018-11-22.
  The book notes:
  
  Replacing proof-of-work with proof-of-stake
  
  In 2015, a researcher named Rob Halford wondered if he could connect BOINC to a cryptocurrency. BOINC was already set up to divide computer tasks amongst many computers. In addition, it could call on large numbers of people willing to run its software. If those individuals were rewarded with cryptocurrency for their efforts, and if existing currency miners could also be drawn into using BOINC, everyone could benefit. But in order to do that, the researchers would have to utilize an entirely new sort of blockchain that would free up computers from the necessity of creating proof-of-work hash. ...
  ...
  Most important of all, proof-of-stake eliminates the proof-of-work role for the blockchain, making it less demanding on computer processors. The coin age is the only thing necessary to trigger a new block, no computer-intensive hashing is required. Using a hybrid of proof-of-stake with the valuable computing work done by BOINC, Rob Halford's new cryptocurrency Gridcoin rewarded BOINC users with coins for contributing to any project in the BOINC network.
7. Tirone, Jonathan (2018-01-10). "A Prime Number Could Be the Answer to Bitcoin's Power Problem". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2018-01-11. Retrieved 2018-11-22.
  The article notes:
  
  One example is gridcoin, a cryptocurrency mined by a global network of more than 23,000 computers that are connected with scientists at the University of California at Berkeley. Gridcoins are awarded in return for joining the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing, or BOINC. That work “may lead to advances in medicine, biology, mathematics, science, climatology, particle and astrophysics,” according to the group’s website, which notes that the energy needed to mine gridcoin is a fraction of what bitcoin requires.
8. Magee, Tamlin (2018-01-08). "Eight of the most interesting Bitcoin alternatives". Techworld. Archived from the original on 2018-11-22. Retrieved 2018-11-22.
  The article notes:
  
  The cryptocurrency Gridcoin has a pretty unique proposition: it claims to be ‘environmentally friendly’ to mine and it also rewards network users who complete computational science work with Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing. The BOINC system supports scientific projects by providing access to computational power for researchers without access to supercomputers.
9. Kaushal, Mohit; Tyle, Sheel (2015-01-13). "The Blockchain: What It Is and Why It Matters". Brookings Institution. Archived from the original on 2018-11-22. Retrieved 2018-11-22.
  The article notes:
  
  Companies are already building their own Blockchains for various applications such as Gridcoin that leverages the Blockchain to crowdsource scientific computing projects. Gridcoin uses its own protocols that require much less computing power and electricity to manage than traditional bitcoin networks.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Gridcoin to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely reluctant to treat Antonopolous's explicit advocacy as "reliable sourcing" for notability, for the same reason we don't accept crypto blogs as RSes for notability. Your refbombing also includes explicit blogs and passing mentions, which you have no excuse after these years for claiming pass RS muster - David Gerard (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, which of these are crypto blogs? Is it Bloomberg News? Is it the French popular science magazine with a 70 year publishing history? Or is it one of the dead-tree books? Point taken about Antonopoulos, but the rest of these seem like reliably neutral sources to me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mean to butt in and change the topic, but I just wanted to mention that the first source I listed above (https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/woot17/woot17-paper-grothe.pdf) seems to have been presented at a "usenix" conference. Does that make it an independent and reliable academic source? Not sure what the consensus is on papers presented at conferences. Let me know what your guys' assessment is. I want to make sure we establish that the source isn't just some random pdf doc posted online, but was actually published in an independent and reliable academic venue. MaxwellMolecule (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conference presentations don't generally go through "peer review" as such. OTOH, they're also how a lot of computer science is actually presented to the world. So ... maybe? (Welcome to sourcing, it's sometimes grey.) - David Gerard (talk) 18:42, 22 November 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Klimionok

[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Various source searches are only providing fleeting, minor passing mentions in rs. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current article is totally reliant on PRIMARY. I could not see any IRS to support any of the article. However, he is the author of several books, which are held by multiple main stream libraries, but without any IRS to support even the most basic core/depth I do not see how the subject can be got over the GNG or AUTHOR line. If someone can find some even partially core/depth IRS material I could be convinced otherwise. Aoziwe (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 14:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, he's authored several books that are held in main stream libraries, but I can't find a single independent source that covers him significantly. The complete lack of such sources means that almost no content can be added in this page that comes from someone independent, so any content must be referenced by his personal website.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 19:22, 24 November 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Belvedere, Wellington

[edit]

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

Little or no claim of notability. Sheldybett (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly a notable Art Deco building.[12] -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable - not on the Wellington City Council list of heritage buildings. Plenty of other art deco buildings in NZ and Wellington that are. NealeFamily (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article asserts no claim of notability. MB 19:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the information about the building into the Edmund Anscombe article. The building does not appear to be notable in its own right (though searching for it is very difficult, when there is also a locality and a street in Wellington called Belvedere). RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Anscombe says his architecture practice was "prolific". I assume there were many hundreds if not more projects. The article already makes note of his "key" designs. I don't think we should start adding a sentence about every one there. MB 19:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly non-notable. Atchom (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that with searching in other languages/additional search terms there is sufficient sourcing to demonstrate notability (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Cañadas

[edit]

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

It’s been a decade and no one has improved the article to properly establish notability. Trillfendi (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a trivial search finds significant coverage of subject across many years in multiple languages. WP:N clearly states that notability is not based on the state of sourcing in an article. Bakazaka (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe my googley just isn’t working then because I found no source for these statements in this article; everything says citation needed for a reason.Trillfendi (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For example, searching "esther cañadas sete gibernau" in Google gets an El Pais article [13] as the very first hit. If that's not working, then it's going to be difficult to do a proper WP:BEFORE. Bakazaka (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's very easy to find sources, especially in Spanish but also in English. Instead of just googling a name, it's often helpful to do a more specific search by adding a word that relates to the person, like esther canadas modelo to find Spanish articles about a Spanish model or esther canadas "people.com" because People magazine might've written about a popular model [14]. -kyykaarme (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on sources found by other editors. I note that the Spanish Wikipedia version of this article has a source in El Pais for her place of birth, and there may be other useful references in the other language Wikipedias too. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:04, 24 November 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. Very clear consensus that notability is satisfied (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Scowcroft Group

[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE and WP:GNG, and mostly unsourced. Sheldybett (talk) 11:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? NYTimes: [15]; WaPo: [16]; Foreign Affairs: [17]. Isn't this what Wikipedia does? I mean, have articles on widely cited, significant political consulting groups. So that our users can see who and what they are? See also closely related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franklin Miller.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
page improvement can begin with material in The Strategist: Brent Scowcroft and the Call of National Security, published by PublicAffairs, 2015 pp. p.500 visible on gBooks [18]. some pages not visible, might require a walk to the library. But, truly, WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this notable organization per WP:GNG and WP:NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, refs above are unarguable. Szzuk (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW keep. seriously.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is silly. Atchom (talk) 05:48, 24 November 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) ShunDream (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nan Su Yati Soe

[edit]

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

Claim of notability of acting "lead roles in several Burmese films and acted over 200 films". I have checked all possible search engines to establish any WP:RS and also confirm WP:NOTABILITY but nothing comes up. ShunDream (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar -related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a disruptive nomination as there is already plenty of significant coverage in Burmese reliable sources referenced in the article, passes WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG regards Atlantic306 (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I'm going to assume good faith, but how on earth did you miss all those references on the page? FOARP (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The references were in Burmese and i tried checking through her burmese name on search engine but nothing still came up. That is why i brought it here for a pair or more different opinions. ShunDream (talk) 16:13, 18 November 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. There appears to be a strong consensus founded on WP:PAG favoring deletion. I did consider the possibility of a redirect, though not expressly supported by any participants in the discussion. Ultimately I think the article name is not a sufficiently likely search term for that. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shankle and McBride family

[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only three of the sources cited ([19][20][21]) mention either of these families, and speak more about Shankleville, Texas. Wikipedia is not a genealogical site or memorial. --Magnolia677 (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Almost every place in US is likely to have a known founder. There might be a case for merging a brief summary as to who the original Shankle was into the article Shankleville. Essentially most such founders are NN, except possibly locally, so that descent from them is also NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shankleville is not an "every place in the US," its a freedmen's town, and thus of historical relevance, as such towns were established by people escaping from the terrorism, racism, Jim Crow etc, of the country's history, and thus constitute a very niche and historic place in the country's founding, history and culture, so thus relevant, passing WP:GNG and WP:RS - and thus every founding family of such places are of historic relevance and notability. -LumaNatic (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All towns were formed for a reason and have an extensive history. Not every founder is notable. Natureium (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Freedmen's towns are an unique part of history, and so are different from "all towns." Wikipedia has coverage on just about every highway and road in the US - if they are notable, the families behind freedmen's towns are as well, especially due to their unique place in history and the unique set of circumstances behind their coming into being. -LumaNatic (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of RS focused on this topic means it does not pass GNG. Natureium (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RS isn't exactly applicable here. The towns themselves have a unique history, so the founding families will. A reliance on "RS" here will only lead to GIGO, where we replicate the systemic issues in the mainstream. -LumaNatic (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS is applicable everywhere. Natureium (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources listed pass WP:RS. If your argument is that the article is a stub, and could be built out more, ok. The original issue concerned WP:GNG which by its very nature it passes. -LumaNatic (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention the word stub or the length of the article at all. Length of an article is very rarely relevant in a deletion discussion. Natureium (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm working with LumaNatic, so I won't make any official argument for or against deletion. However I did want to bring up a few things that I think should be considered.

The first is that merging should absolutely be done here, since the information here should be covered to some point in the article for the town. However that said...

We should take into account that the coverage of the family is most likely going to include coverage of the town to some extent because they're linked together. So rather than look for coverage that only mentions the family, we should instead look at whether or not the coverage predominantly focuses on the family as opposed to the town and how much coverage predominantly focuses on the family. I will say that there is a lot of coverage that focuses on the family, especially Jim and Winnie Shankle. There are notable members of the family, however given the shared history it makes more sense to have a single article on the family as opposed to multiple smaller articles. When it comes to the town page, we typically don't want articles on populated places to be too much about their inhabitants and there is information here that is well covered enough to warrant mentioning somewhere, but would dominate the town article. As such, it could make sense to have a spinout article. This would also allow the family article to cover the notable family members (those who have an article or have at least received coverage to justify a mention) in a way that the town article couldn't or shouldn't. It's fairly common to have an article for families with multiple notable members or descendants.

This scenario kind of reminds me of a past AfD I took part in for Tabitha King, the spouse of famous horror author Stephen King. The argument there was that she wasn't independently notable outside of her husband, as the coverage for her would often mention her husband, even if in passing. However the same argument was applicable there, as it would be very, very difficult to find coverage that didn't pay at least lip service to her famous spouse because he's linked to her life in an integral way and rather than try to find coverage that only mentioned her, we should instead look at how much the coverage focused on her - basically, the depth of coverage on her, even if her husband was mentioned. It ended up that while most of the coverage mentioned her husband to varying degrees, it still covered her in-depth and the amount of coverage would justify a spinout article.

Again, not making an official bolded argument either way, but I do think that this should be taken into consideration during the discussion. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I feel the sourcing is too weak for this kind of article. Of the three sources listed in the nomination (presumably, the three best sources) two are to magazines of local electric cooperatives, and one is a forestry magazine. We also have sources such as a recipe book. It is fairly clear to me that the story of this family originates from local anectdotes and these magazines are probably swallowing them uncritically. I have no reason to believe they are untrue, but it is not Wikipedia's place to assess that; we need more scholarly sources to do that and they are entirely missing from this article.

Large tracts of the article are entirely unsourced, especially the list of notable descendants, the only thing that really justifies this as a separate article from Shankleville, Texas. Some of those names appear in the Deep East Texas Electric Cooperative source, but it is described as a list of "accomplished Shankleville descendants and residents" without distinguishing which is which. So some on the list may just be notable residents rather than family members, again indicating the town article is a better home.

As well as reliability concerns, I'm concerned that both electric cooperative articles may not be durably archived and accessible in the future. First of all, the convenience links to these pages are to the website of the Shankleville Historical Society with no indication that they have permission to host them, so we may be linking to copyright violations. More importantly, I cannot find any index of holdings of these magazines. Following a link from Deep East Texas EC site gets me to a magazine archive, but the February 2014 issue does not contain the relevant article. So either the article is entirely forged (unlikely) or it is a local mag of a local branch of a cooperative that is simply not held in any accessible archive, either on or off line, thus failing WP:V. SpinningSpark 12:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- I searched the February 2014 Issue, the website as a whole, and also google, and the only existence I can find of that article is the PDF on shankville.org. Natureium (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The scholarly and other secondary sourcing is there and it passes all guidelines. The family and its notability is well cited, even if some may feel that the article in its stub form hasn't yet reflected it as well as it could. Again, this is an unique subject because the family founded a freedmen's town - so are automatically noteworthy, and thus passing WP:GNG and WP:RS, as such towns and its founders are an unique part of the country's history, particularly when so many of its descendants are notable and are identified as such in media, scholarship and beyond. OAN, this discussion, along with many others on Wikipedia that reflect the larger issues of systemic, institutional and cultural bias in the Western world where such families and places branded "black" and/or "non-white" become under more scrutiny and of being questioned on their noteriety than other such families and places, would make for great research study on how well Wikipedia working on such systemic and institutional bias, and the ability to pinpoint the origin points of such on the platform. Anyone who wants to explore this more, feel free to contact me directly. LumaNatic (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are not permitted to vote! twice. Founding a town does not confer automatic notability (and the town was not founded by the entire family anyway). Shouting "institutional bias" does nothing to advance your case. I for one would be delighted if this family could be shown to be notable. The criterion is to provide ignificant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. You would be better advised to point to examples of that rather than accusations of discrimination. SpinningSpark 17:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – this topic does not pass GNG. Keep arguments above seem to focus on the notability of Shankleville, but notability is not inherited. Brad v 18:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just a question for the delete !voters. I'm not really seeing much argumentation stating the verifiable material in this article would be inappropriate to include in the Shankleville article. To the contrary, there seems to be acknowledgment that much of the sourcing is connected to the bigger subject of Shankleville. If that's the case, and the issue is instead GNG, doesn't it make more sense to merge/redirect? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like most of the relevant well-sourced content is already in Shankleville, Texas, but a redirect makes sense. A merge outcome implies that we would have a whole section in Shankleville about this family, which I don't think is a good idea. Brad v 18:41, 24 November 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie St. James

[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a musician whose only evident notability claim is having been in multiple bands -- but even most of the bands he was in are themselves of questionable notability, and even if they did get kept it still would not constitute an instant free pass over WP:NMUSIC #6 in the absence of reliable source coverage about him in media. But the sources here are blogs, social networking content, user-generated discussion forums and other people's AllMusic profiles which tangentially verify that those other musicians and their albums exist while completely failing to mention Eddie St. James at all in conjunction with them. And while the writing tone here isn't as egregious as the writing tone in Northstar / U.S. Metal (band), it still tips noticeably into fansite advertorialism in several spots. This is not how you demonstrate a musician as notable enough for a standalone article: the inclusion test is not what the article says, but how well the article references what it says -- and the references here just aren't cutting it at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or maybe redirect to Trance (band). Not really a key member of any notable band's peak lineup, and no real coverage found of him or his solo releases. --Michig (talk) 08:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article uses a lot of text trying to convince the reader that Mr. St. James is more historically important than he really is. A closer reading reveals many giant leaps of attempted notability, such as the fact that his band was in a studio at the same time as someone notable, or he was the roadie for a local band in which one member became famous somewhere else much later. All sources available on Mr. St. James, including some books, mention him tangentially as being associated with someone else, but he is always two or three degrees of separation from notability. He has indeed been a temporary member of a few notable bands, but always before or after their glory days, and none of the found sources discuss Mr. St. James beyond being present. Therefore I see no need for a redirect to any of those bands either. He's a long-serving journeyman who has apparently made an honest living bouncing around the music scene, but that is not independently notable in itself. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after reviewing the above mentioned reasons for deletion and doing some further research of other Wikipedia entries of this type, there seems to be many entries that are either similar to this or have even lesser reference qualifications than this article. This artist has been on Wikipedia for ca. 10 yrs+ and is at least been mentioned in regards to his own work (also in combination with other more well known artist) in such notable publications such as Billboard Mag as well as other well known and established publications both in North America and in Europe-etc.(checked through the reference list) Only now have the guidelines come up for questioning?, yes there are some references that are not exactly up to the WP:NMUSIC standard, but then again this is by far not the only article that may suffer from this problem. Also worth mentioning that most of these references that are now in question are also used, without question, by many other entries of this category type. If this article were to be deleted than probably half of all the other entries for this category and type would also, according to the aforementioned qualifications, have to be deleted. Xtl2 (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)xlt2[reply]

See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. It's not logical to say that an article should be kept because there are other articles with the same problems. Those articles should also be improved or deleted when somebody gets to them. Also, timing does not matter. This is a volunteer encyclopedia and it just took a while for someone who's familiar with the policies to finally came across this article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:25, 17 November 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gaia Mater

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I fail to see how this meets WP:GNG or WP:CORP for lack of reliable coverage from secondary sources. Multiple issues since 8 years ago. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing on google, news or books I can see, no refs in the article. Not much of a claim to significance in the article. Szzuk (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find nothing except listings in directories, lists of authorised NGOs, and UN statements where they are one of several issuing NGOs. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:41, 24 November 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hartley Jackson

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD was a no consensus purely due to sock activity preventing a full review. Fails the notability test in pro wrestling and the article relies too heavily on Cage Match. His activity in Pro Wrestling NOAH is limited at best and notability is not inherited, and sources otherwise are virtually non existent. Plainly not notable. Addicted4517 (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable wrestler.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article was declined at AFC but created here anyway, the only reason it survived last time was because a sock initiated the AfD. This fails GNG and nothing has improved in four years.LM2000 (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete, refs don't support notability, the nom is quite correct in the appraisal. Szzuk (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep,for same reason as 1st nomination he has just became a trainer at the WWE Performance Center and made a Lethwei debut https://twitter.com/HartleyJackson_/status/1063935599525195776 https://www.instagram.com/p/Be1XQDWFpPa/

https://www.instagram.com/p/BeCI7Q3F8wM/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8pqXEqo5ug https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6Qz0g_2f-U

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.101.171.18 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not reliable sources. 2001:8003:591D:2400:15EB:183:392E:EB72 (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can now confirm the claim of WWE PC coach is a lie. Hartley is not listed on the Performance Centre website as a coach. 2001:8003:591D:2400:D1C6:F235:E6F9:3D77 (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient for GNG. I searched Australian newspapers via ProQuest I only found 1 article containing an arguably sufficient mention, which I have added to page to see if that helps it, but I don't think it's enough to justify keeping...Cabrils (talk) 23:37, 20 November 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. This is not a strong consensus but after three relists the only actual !vote is for deletion. If someone wants to try and rescue this article, drop me a line. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multicultural Family Support Center in South Korea

[edit]

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

GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not much of an article, but this is essentially a government agency. My experience is that there isn't much written in English about Korean organisations, but I think we should be slow to conclude that it's not notable. There is an article about them in the International Journal of Education and Learning. Rathfelder (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it makes sense then to merge it with Ministry of Gender Equality and Family?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a non notable subject, created by an spa 7 years ago and forgotten. The above comment is noted but government initiatives need to satisfy wp:v. Szzuk (talk) 18:49, 18 November 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 combined weight of WP:PAG based discussion and analysis of sources comes down in favor of deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest Exchange

[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIGCOV. References are mix of churnalism. scope_creep (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nomination. Sig missing by User:LikeMeercats. Added by scope_creep (talk) 11:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've made a full breakdown of sources. Some are from major news outlets likes Reuters or Forbes, and most of the articles were published by staff writers, journalists and reporters - no contributors or self-published writers. While the usual crunchbase and bloomberg profiles are useless, there is enough coverage to pass GNG. Definitely a keep vote.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
1. Harvest Exchange Corp Overview - Bloomberg Profile	? Probably managed by the company staff	~	A simple company overview	✘ No
2. 'Loeb effect' buoys social media site for investors - Reuters	Written by two Reuters journalists	The source is a major newspaper	Discusses the company in detail	✔ Yes
3. Harvest Exchange Investors - Crunchbase Profile		~	A simple company overview	✘ No
4. Financial content provider Harvest Exchange hires seed investor as CFO - RIABiz.com		?	The article discusses the subject directly and in detail	? Unknown
5. Harvest Exchange: Fintech Delivering Content From Financial Firms Directly To Readers - Benzinga	Written by a staff author	A well known news outlet	The article discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
6. Harvest, The LinkedIn For Wall Street's Biggest Funds, Sees A Growth Surge - Forbes	Written by Forbes Staff	The source is a major magazine	The article discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
7. Harvesting Financial Info For Advisors - Financial Advisor		?		? Unknown
8. Company Overview of Harvest Exchange Corp - Bloomberg L.P.		?	A simple company overview	✘ No
9. Exclusive: Houston financial startup to expand - American City Business Journals	Written by a Business Journal reporter		The article discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
10. Harvest Exchange Wants To Provide Expert Investing Insight Without The Price Tag - Business Insider	Written by a deputy editor at Business Insider	A well known news outlet	The article discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
11. This Website Has Members Like Dan Loeb And Kyle Bass Posting Their Newest Stock Picks - Business Insider	Written by a reporter			✔ Yes
12. Financial tech startup closes $5M round, opens new office - Houston Business Journal	Written by a Business Journal reporter			✔ Yes
13. Houston fintech co. sees growth in users, names new CFO - American City Business Journals	Written by a reporter			✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

⚜ LithOldor ⚜ ^(T) 22:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi ⚜ LithOldor ⚜ That is a very nice table, but you need to examine each ref in turn.

Ref 2 is a primary ref, and cant be used to establish notability. It is also a classic churnalism article.
Ref 5 is a primary ref, and is them applying for an award. It is also an interview and Non RS.
Ref 6 is a /site subdomain of Forbes, which is used for webhosts. It Non RS, meaning it is not applicable.
Ref 9 is primary, discussing the startup funding. It it a primary ref. It is also churnalism, and is not classed as a quality reference.
Ref 10 is primary, discussing the startup funding. It it a primary ref. It is also churnalism, and is not classed as a quality reference. Also look at this: [22] This is paid to post articles, meaning it is Non RS.
Ref 11 is also Non RS.
Ref 12 is churnalism, and a press release. Non RS.
Ref 13 is churnalism, and a press release. Non RS.

There is no secondary sources to to establish notability. It is all classic startup news, with a mix of churnalism, funding news and some press releases, and Non RS source thrown in for good measures. All in all rank, and what WP:NCORP was designed to mitigate against. scope_creep (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs discussion about the sources LithOldor made a breakdown of.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have to agree with the nom and his analysis of the indeed very nice table. Unfortunately a lot of those refs are low quality due to being interviews or Churnalism. Let's face it - this can be easily discerned from the article itself, which reads like 'startup business as usual'. Nothing makes this company special, through it does seem to be investing good amount of $$ into churnalism and related PRs. We should not be an outlet for their self promotion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My own analysis—very much per scope_creep—of the sources (sorry, far less colourful tha above, yet, I suggest, more accurate!) indicates that there is a serious dearth of the persistent, in-depth coverage in reliable sources necessary to meet the minimum requirements of WP:NCORP; the coverage consists solely of passing mentions, directory entries, blogs, tabloids, WP:SPS, press releases and social media. ——SerialNumber54129 12:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I do not think sources like Reuters can allow churnalism and it is obvious for an organization to have more passing mentions than in depth coverage which publishes researches and analysis in Financial domain. Treianlatri (talk) 21:42, 23 November 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Miller

[edit]

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

This is a mess...looks to have been written by the article subject, and is a promotional resume. And no, AFD isn't clean up, but this guy doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG either. I'm not seeing any sufficient sourcing. This article isn't adding to the encyclopedia and we don't need it. Marquardtika (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Major nuclear defense policy expert. While it is true that someone named Milleredit created the aritcle, it seems unlikely that a policy wonk working at this level stooped to creating his own WP article. But even if he did, it does not negate the fact that he is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are claims here that would qualify him for an article if he could be properly referenced as getting over WP:GNG for them — but the only "reference" being cited here at all is his "our staff" profile on the self-published website of his own current employer. The article states nothing about him that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be sourced much better than this, however, and even going all the way back to its initial creation in 2006 it's never been sourced any better than this — the only other reference this article has ever cited at all was his "our staff" profile on the self-published website of a different former employer, which is not a notability boost. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Searching Franklin Miller Scowcroft turns up a lot of sourcing. The Scowcroft Group, Atlantic Council and post in the George W. White House make it almost certain that article can be sourced. and, as Nom says, WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, our job is to determine the notability of the subject. Searching without the middle initial, and with keywords like "nuclear" in WaPo, NYTimes, gScholar and elsewhere turns up copious confirmation of notability. And gBooks, look at this search on: Franklin Miller nuclear (no "_") in gBooks [23]: "Franklin Miller is both the father and the architect of the U.S.-UK dialogue on nuclear weapons policy...", "As principal deputy assistant secretary, Franklin C. Miller is a civil servant who has been the nuclear major domo in the ...", "Former National Security Council and Defense Department official Franklin Miller (who played a key role in U.S. nuclear policy for the past two decades) said in ...", and more, similar. Article needs expansion, improvement. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY I have started improving and expanding the article. Yes, the article began as as PROMO, (at a guess, someone who works for him wrote it,) But it's not like he's some unknown actor, or PR professional. He has been a major player in nuclear arms policy for decades. And, yes, sourcing was lousy when page was brought to AfD. But WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. The question here, as always, is whether sources exist. I will continue to expand, but I urge editors to search books and news archives using keywords, especially "nuclear."E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a discussion about E.M.Gregory recent edits to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am no nuclear weapon strategy expert. However, what does make such experts notable is producing ideas and policies with which serious people engage in policy journals like Foreign Affairs: The Problem With NATO's Nukes; The American Interest: [ https://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/01/30/russia-flouts-landmark-cold-war-treaty/Obama's Putin Problem Russia Flouts Landmark Cold War Treaty, Our Year of Living Dangerously]; and more. Here are searches on him in the Washington Post: [[24]], [25] one as "Franklin Miller, other as Franklin C. Miller.'E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Article can be cleaned up and person is notable. Sammartinlai (talk) 05:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Holders of an Honorary KBE are certainly notable per WP:ANYBIO #1. We have always held that CBEs (the grade below KBE) or above meet the criteria. Honorary knighthoods are not that commonly awarded to foreign nationals and are only awarded to very senior people. And it appears that he does have one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The KBE satisfies WP:ANYBIO, and he also seems to satisfy WP:POLOUTCOMES. Atchom (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 21:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Convert's Cognitive Development Framework

[edit]

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

The subject of this article appears to be a concept pioneered and promoted by exactly one lecturer, academic, practitioner and terrorism expert with over 25 years experience in the field of radicalization, but despite this there's nothing on Google Scholar for the subject and Dr. Abdul Haqq Baker appears with a very modest amount of citations, enough to confirm that what he writes ends up on Google scholar, but not enough to establish significant influence. Claims that this concept is currently "in use" appear to be entirely OR, although the sources do establish that Dr. Abdul Haqq Baker is employed on certain government programs in the UK and was consulted in a US court case. Does not meet WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the best way to deal with this draft was expose it to other editors in mainspace Legacypac (talk) 06:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, the Convert's Cognitive Development Framework is a proposal pioneered by Dr. Baker. However, as the article stated it was used my the American Criminal Justice System as a guideline for determining the extremism level of convicted felon Jamie Paulin-Ramirez. This framework was explained and broadcast nationally during a the full day lecture given at the Washington D.C. Newseum. The program "Effectively Countering Extremism: A Comprehensive Grassroots Approach was nationally televised on C-Span ^[1], C-Span radio and abcnews.com. Due to the application of this framework Dr. Baker has also spoke at the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime in Astana, Kazakhstan on November 22-23, 2017^[2] and at the United Nations – Counter Terrorism Committee Strasbourg, France April 19 -21, 2011 on the same topic. It appears that his expertise and published works in this field are recognized internationally. Ddstellito (talk) 07:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)ddstellitoDdstellito (talk) 07:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR and no significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Polyamorph (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am still new to the Wikipedia community and open to any suggested edits that need to made to this article so that it meets the Wikapedia criteria. While conducting my research I came across numerous news and research articles on converts and how they are susceptible to radicalization, ^[1]. ^[2],^[3]. I then later came across this theoretical framework and thought it would be highly useful. Ddstellito (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

There are several issues pointed out to be wrong with this article. Please allow me a few days to get them addressed.Ddstellito (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User Polyamorph has provided me a link to Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. Please allow me a few days to see if this article can meet the expected guidelines. Ddstellito (talk) 10:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 13:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have gathered a few edits that speak to the notoriety of Dr. Baker and his theories. I hope to have them posted in the next 48 hours. I hope they meet the communities requirements. Ddstellito (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Significant changes have been made to the opening of the article to show it's notoriety as it has been sought out by many international organizations such as the United Nstions. If I may also add, one of the theory's that I've found very helpful in my studies is securitization theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securitization_(international_relations). However, I am still looking for the notoriety info on that posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddstellito (talk • contribs) 04:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete or Userfy The article is a mess and while I have found some discussion of this, I don't think it's enough. Oddly however, I think it is possible that man behind this theory may be notable. He is a frequently cited and published expert on the subject of Islamic terrorism. I was somewhat surprised that we don't have an article on him. If we did I'd probably support a redirect from this title to Abdul Haqq Baker. (hint hint) -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy (or draftify), with a strong recommendation that this be converted into a draft biography of Abdul Haqq Baker, with the framework as a subsection of that biography. The biographical subject is reasonably well-covered: [26][27][28][29] bd2412 T 14:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This reads as an essay. If it's moved to draft, I suspect it would need a total rewrite (i.e. WP:TNT).

I'm mystified at Legacypac's coment, the best way to deal with this draft was expose it to other editors in mainspace. Surely, if AfC is not cleanup, then moving a draft to mainspace isn't cleanup either. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no clear cut reason to decline a draft intended for mainspace, there is no problem exposing it to more editors. Some pages get greatly expanded and improved while others end up deleted after a wider review. This is one of those edge cases where a single AfC reviewer is not well placed to decide the fate of the page for all time. Legacypac (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but perhaps move to the creator's name. His work is clearly gaining traction and is in use, so the title is a logical redirect to his name for now. Racadicalization remains an important topic in national security. Evidently this theory is an attempt to understand it. I don't see how this is WP:OR since the page creator did not make this up, just collected material about where the topic is discussed, same as any other good page. Legacypac (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's OR in assuming that the cognitive model was implemented/used on a given project just because RS say that Dr. Baker was employed on said project without mentioning the cognitive model in their coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The study is as relevant as Dr. Abdul Haqq Baker, who can very well have his own article, as he would qualify per WP:ACADEMIC. With this edit I cleaned up the parts that talk exclusively about Dr. Abdul Haqq Baker, which are not very relevant for the article and should be used in his potential article. I also added a lead to summarize the content. Last, perhaps the move from Convert's Cognitive Development Framework to Muslim Convert Cognitive Development Framework would be more descriptive, but this is another matter. --1l2l3k (talk) 14:33, 27 November 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 slight merge and redirect to the existing Recaro#Airliner seats . Discussion participants correctly point out that the current set of references are insufficient to show independent notability. Most would be unusable even if the section was merged elsewhere. The one reasonably well-sourced sentence is therefore merged. Note, however, that the Recaro article is itself a mess of unsourced claims. bd2412 T 14:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recaro Aircraft Seating

[edit]

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

34 out the 40 refs are primary sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:ORGIND. scope_creep (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing for keep, but telling me 34 out of the 40 refs are primary is not helpful. The significant thing is what is in the other six? SpinningSpark 12:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Spinning, not just primary, but to the own companies site. Even with the other 6, it has zero coverage. Have you had a look at the references? scope_creep (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually 38 references to their own site. scope_creep (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advertising/promotional, lack of RS. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi scope_creep, you’re right. There were a lot of sources pointing back to their company website. A majority of those sources as well as any other promotional mentions have since been addressed. Now, the article has 16 references with 11 pointing at outside industry and local media sources. Anitab02 (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Ref 1 is primary and point a page which states increased production by 15%, which is promotional and asserts WP:NOTADVERTISING. Also text from a press release, and is Non RS.
Ref 2 is the same, increased production by 15%, which is promotional and asserts WP:NOTADVERTISING. It is also a press release and Non RS.
Ref 3 is primary and cant be used to establish notability. It is also a press release and Non RS.
Ref 4 is another promotion page, discussion sales, order book and is promotional and asserts WP:NOTADVERTISING.
Ref 5 is slightly better, but not much to establish notability, which it should be notable.
Ref 6 is dead and primary from the url cant be used to establish notability.
Ref 7 is primary
Ref 8 is a press release and is Non RS.
Ref 9 is a press release and is Non RS.

Absolutely terrible referencing. scope_creep (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References seem ok for now Allstar83 (talk) 11:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allstar83, You would say that. The references are terrible and you seem to not know what you are talking about. scope_creep (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

scope_creep Have you reviewed references lately? They are fine. bbjoe15(talk) 3:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Recaro. feminist (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If suitable references can found, I dont mind a merge. But not using the current reference set. scope_creep (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sanders (musician)

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a musician, whose only strong notability claim under WP:NMUSIC (having been in multiple bands) is referenced to primary and unreliable sources, rather than to reliable source coverage about him in real media. The references here include blogs, YouTube clips, directly affiliated record labels and online music stores, with literally no evidence whatsoever of even one reliable source. As always, notability under NMUSIC is not extended just because of what an article says -- passing NMUSIC also depends on how well the article references what it says, but none of the "references" here are cutting it at all. And even worse, these lousy references are the ones that somehow got the article "salvaged" when it was first listed for deletion in 2010. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 17 November 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 defaulting to Keep. This was pretty close to being closed as a Keep. I would suggest taking a deep breath before renominating. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Berthiaume

[edit]

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

Biography of a musician, whose claims of notability are resting entirely on a contextless linkfarm of primary and unreliable sources rather than any evidence of properly footnoted real media coverage -- and this has been flagged as lacking references since 2007 without ever having even one reliable source added to it. While there is a notability claim here that would qualify him for an article if it were properly sourced, as some of the albums were on a major label, that isn't an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to be properly referenced -- passing or failing NMUSIC hinges not on what the article says, but on how well it does or doesn't reference what it says, and the "references" here aren't cutting it at all. And furthermore, for an artist from Quebec who primarily recorded and performed in French, the lack of an article in the French Wikipedia is not a good sign. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment are there any decent sources on Proquest ? as you've mentioned before that you use a Canadian version, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC) I haven't seen much on google so far Atlantic306 (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can only ProQuest for wide Canadian coverage inclusive of Quebec newspapers from 1981 on — prior to 1981, all I can access is The Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star. Nonetheless, I did search ProQuest already, but I got just 16 hits on his name — of which 14 were just annual repeats of the same "today in history" listicle for the day of June 23, which briefly namechecked him only in the "people who died on this date" section and weren't substantive coverage about him, and the other two are unrelated people who merely happen to have the same name. I've already done the best I can do in terms of trying to salvage this myself, and basically found nothing. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple albums through RCA Victor. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not an inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to be reliably sourceable to media coverage about the albums. Bearcat (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. People do not have to have media coverage about albums to be notable. It does help for musicians though. Regardless, what is needed is verification form reliable sources that they satisfy some sort of notability criteria. In this case NMUSIC. The album notes themselves are reliable sources about the albums themselves. They show that this person has had multiple releases though a significant label (lot more significant in that time than now with the ease of digital release) which satisfies said criteria. You can see online pictures of these records [30], [31], [32], [33]. Criteria such as that is there because back then people weren't publishing stuff on the internet. They tell us it's safe to presume there was coverage in the papers and magazines of the times, people don't get that far without some sort of reasonable coverage. And lead singers of a band that sells ~40000 copies of a single in the 50s do get coverage. All that said I will provide some online coverage to the article. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, people do have to have media coverage to be notable. It is not enough to be able to nominally verify that the albums exist via discogs.com entries to get a musician over WP:NMUSIC — the notability test is never just the thing being claimed in and of itself, but the reception of reliable source coverage for the thing being claimed. A musician does not get over the notability bar just because the existence of his albums metaverifies itself, just as a writer does not get over the notability bar just because the existence of his books metaverifies itself — musicians (and writers) get over the bar when reliable sources have written their own independent editorial content about the musician (or the writer) and their work.
We do not keep articles on the basis of simply presuming that coverage probably existed somewhere, either — we don't even have a requirement that our sources be online at all, but do permit offline print sources, like books and newspaper or magazine articles, to be cited. So "back then people weren't publishing stuff on the internet" is not a reason why an article would get to rest on bad or unreliable or primary sourcing instead of media coverage, because the matter of whether the sources are online or offline is irrelevant. So it's not enough to simply assume that coverage probably existed somewhere, because literally anybody could simply say that about anything — to save an unsourced article from deletion, you have to actually dig into newspaper archives and show hard evidence that enough reliable source coverage does exist to salvage it with. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, people do have to have media coverage to be notable." Nice strawman, I didn't say otherwise but that's still wrong, check out how many pass on WP:PROF without media coverage. I also never said discogs.com entries get anyone over.. Yes anyone can say about anything but we still need a good reason to presume it is true. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Found a half-decent obituary on Radio-Canada [34]. Had a look at the English-language Quebec papers on newspapers.com, but found little other than mentions of upcoming performances. I'd expect there would be at least some coverage in the Quebec newspapers or magazines, offline more than likely, but that's just a guess. Curiocurio (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have updated the article and it now has sourcing to verify multiple albums through RCA Victor, amongst other things. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can find other coverage besides that in the references - the English-language Montreal Gazette in 1955 confirms that N'oublie Jamais was the top tune on the French hit parade [35]; in 1961, the Gazette described the song Pourquoi Partir, sung by Raymond Bertiaume and the Three Bars as well worth listening to [36] (that song is not even listed in the article); in 1962, the Gazette reported that Berthiaume became musical director of the new French language radio station CKLM [37] (also not in the article); in 1963, the Gazette reported that Berthiaume and his quartet won the "all-around originality" category in the Grand Prix du disque canadien [38] (that is also confirmed in the 1977 book Gilles Vigneault: Bibliographie Descriptive et Critique, Discographie, Filmographie, Iconographie, Chronologie); the website Les auteurs et compositeurs de la chanson francophone includes in its biography of him that he won the Best Popular Singer award in the 1968 Festival du disque [39]; a film review in The Ottawa Journal in 1970 says that the best thing about the film was the music, "particularly a lovely song called Pauvre Amour, sung by Raymond Berthiaume" - "an attractive piece, with proper attention would easily make a hit" [40]; the Gazette, the Ottawa Citizen and the Ottawa Journal named Berthiaume as one of the four judges in the CBC Song Market competition in 1968 [41]; he is included in the 1983 The Canadian jazz discography, 1916-1980 and the 1992 Dictionnaire de la musique populaire au Québec, 1955-1992; The Ottawa Citizen TV listing in 2006 has a show called Où sont passés nos idoles? (Where have our idols gone?) [42]: the episode on Crooners included Berthiaume, suggesting that he had achieved idol status; a website called Biographies d'artistes Quebecois calls him the "crooner par excellence" in the 1960s and 70s [43]. I don't have access to most French language sources from Canada, which would probably have more coverage of him (the website Les auteurs et compositeurs de la chanson francophone mentions more hits, and more roles, eg as choirmaster), but I think there is enough to establish notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I proposed this for deletion on October 18 but Atlantic306 pulled it. I'm only now aware that it has been proposed again. I had trouble finding independent reliable sources for this person. I'm not keen on using foreign language sources on English Wikipedia. That's a rule I would like to see changed. Machine translations are inadequate, to say the least. Sometime they don't even get the pronouns correct. I've seen people referred to as "it", which is troubling, sexist, and ironic coming from a machine. I'm not sure Berthiaume is a jazz musician, so I would be tempted to remove him from Wikiproject Jazz. The project's Cleanup Listing has about 5300 articles that need heavy work, with articles going back ten years, and there appear to be two or three of us working on it. I have barely put a dent in it after more than two years. AllMusic has no biography about him and lists only three of his albums, and none of those albums is classified jazz. The three-volume hardcover New Grove Dictionary of Jazz doesn't mention him. The Jazz Book by Joachim Berendt, which has more names than the New York City telephone book, doesn't mention him. This is a book that mentions Lebanese oud player Rabih Abou Khalil, Xu Feng Xia, who plays the Chinese zither (ghuzeng), and French tubist Michel Godard (he's in a band with Khalil!). We can't keep everyone. It's common sense. Evidence of caring about an article means working on an article. Evidence of notability means an abundance of available sources.
Vmavanti (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not prohibit using foreign-language sources — there are a lot of people who we should have articles about, but couldn't if we restricted ourselves exclusively to English-language sourcing. For instance, we would likely not be able to maintain articles about most German politicians who aren't named Angela Merkel if the notability test required attention in anglophone media — and if French-language sources were verboten, then we would have to make a special rule that all Canadian provincial legislators passed WP:NPOL except the ones in Quebec. Yes, we do preference English-language sources over foreign-language sources when English-language sources exist — but no, we don't deprecate foreign-language sources as ineligible for use. As long as the sources are reliable ones, we don't care what language they're written in — there are lots of people on Wikipedia who can read and speak those other languages if you need clarification of what a source you can't read says, and there's this thing called Google Translate which, even if it ain't perfect, translates stuff well enough to give you the basic gist of what a foreign-language source says too. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly passes WP:GNG as shown by the sources identified by Rebecca Green. To disqualify foreign sources would be a terrible idea as it would wipe out a huge number of articles and enshrine systemic bias. Its a pity the previous commenter didn' t fix the article himself instead of demanding others do it Atlantic306 (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got some unexamined assumptions that deserve examining. You speculate, you don't know, that "huge number of articles" would be "wiped out" without foreign language sources. The melodramatic rhetoric suggests a bias in favor of indiscriminate addition, which is contrary to Wikipedia's documentation, goals, and purposes. Wikipedia is already huge. Becoming huge was not one of Wikipedia's goals unless you can show me where. Making it less huge strikes me as a positive rather than a negative, especially after what I said about the cleanup listing. I don't know what you mean by "systematic bias". Not all bias is bad. We all have assumptions and presuppositions. The Italian Wikipedia has an Italian bias. The German Wikipedia has a German bias. It's natural and logical. How could it be any other way? People in those countries write about subjects closest to them, using sources available to them. So what? But that is beside the current argument. Last, Atlantic306 criticizes me for failing to fix this article and "demanding others do it". Did I demand that? I'm not aware of making demands. I do ask a lot questions. Is it too much to ask that if people care about an article they should work on it rather than vote to retain it and let it continue to rot like a condemned building? For how many more years? In the hope that a good Samaritan will come along? I can show you over five thousand articles that say that won't happen. Nevertheless, my proposal for deletion had nothing to do with my work ethic. Keeping aside the obvious point that insults are prohibited in Wikipedia, the implication here is that I shirked my duty or was lazy. If Atlantic believes that, he can take a look at the editing I've done. It's accessible to everyone, right? Judge for yourself. I remind participants to analyze comments rather than attack people.
Vmavanti

(talk) 00:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt mean to attack you just your proposal. Jimbo Wales has described the purpose of Wikipedia as the depository of all human knowledge, while the co-founder left some years ago because in his own words the deletionists had taken over. English wikipedia is different to other wikis because English is the world's most used language so English wikipedia is accessible in most countries by a significant percentage of population who expect their country's topics to be covered even if they are only notable in one country which means foreign language sources should remain acceptable, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow White (band)

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per rationale at first AfD closed as no consensus. Apparently just another MySpace band. None of the coverage is significant nor in-depth enough to pass WP:BAND. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as with the first AfD, it's difficult to make a decision without access to the music magazines from 2005 – NME and Dazed & Confused are mentioned in the article, but they also apparently had reviews in Q and Uncut as well. But we don't know for which of their records these reviews were for, and we don't have access to those periodicals at present. The paucity of their output isn't a good sign either – two singles limited to 500 copies for the first one and an unknown quantity for the second, a live album available from selected outlets and limited to 200 copies, and an EP limited to 1000 copies... even if they sold every copy, it looks like this band sold barely 2000 records in total in their entire career. Finding those reviews would help their case, but at the moment I'm leaning delete, in the absence of any solid sources, and in any case we can safely say they've had negligible lasting impact. Richard3120 (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment couple thoughts here...the article dates to 2005 and its initial edits seem to have been written shortly after reading about them in (among other places) the NME. Given that at least one of the original sources mentioned in the article has already been dug up, I think it's more or less reasonable to assume they got the attention the article claims. The fact that coverage might be missing from online repositories is not surprising - even 'comprehensive' archives of noteworthy publications turn out not to be so, much of the time. Of course, slogging to some place that has back issues of all of these magazines is tedious, and unlikely to get done in five days, even if someone had the impetus to do so. But since notability is not temporary, if they reached the threshold in 2005, they'd be notable, even if their long-term impact was minimal. Chubbles (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very little coverage found (a concert review from Gigwise which briefly covers the band as they were only the second support act was probably the best, along with the Vice piece from the first AfD). At the end of the day, they didn't last long enough or do enough to be included in an encyclopedia. If they did receive significant coverage, nobody has yet been able to identify it. --Michig (talk) 12:09, 17 November 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 Gazza (musician). Sandstein 12:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gazza Music Productions

[edit]

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

Non-notable record label that fails WP:CORPDEPTH, as per source searches. Could be redirected to Gazza (musician). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Namibia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Northamerica1000 would you consider a Merge to the creator's page? I completely agree that this is a good nomination, but think we can spare deleting the info. LikeMeercats (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete User:Northamerica1000 I should have read more of his page prior. A good amount of it is written in the first person and poorly sourced. Going to put my own AfD in now, and this was a great nomination. LikeMeercats (talk) 04:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article Gazza (musician) (who regardless of the quality of the article and the sourcing, is clearly notable). RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: The article is entirely unsourced; while merging is functional in some cases, the merging of entirely unsourced content is not particularly aligned with WP:V. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~Redirect to Gazza (musician). Much of the content may need to go, but there are sources available (e.g. [44]) to at least provide basic verification. --Michig (talk) 09:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Actually, a redirect will suffice, I think. --Michig (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No hope of passing notability guidelines. But redirects are cheap, and this mention is enough to refer to the production company in the Gazza article and redirect. BenKuykendall (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William J. U. Philip

[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. The only source the article has ever had is the website of the church he is/was a minister at; I can't find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The closest thing I could find to a claim to notability is that he's written a book, which was reviewed here by Graham Daniels, which doesn't seem notable in itself. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a Pastor isn't notable because he's a pastor, and I don't think that leading all 500 of his congregation away from the Church of Scotland is either. The singular church he led them away from is notable. Being anti-gay might make him notable, but not IMO. -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 13:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched for him, found little beyond some letters to the editor. Fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manimala Girls High School

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

First AfD relied on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which was discussed on RfC and is now not applicable in the way it was. This school fails WP:NSCHOOL which says All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either WP:ORG, or WP:GNG or both. Does not satisfy either due to lack of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources in the article or WP:BEFORE. It is not presumed to be notable just because it (clearly) exists per WP:N. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable school Spiderone 14:54, 17 November 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. Even the "keep" !votes argue that this article is not what we want in WP. Applying WP:TNT seems to be called for. Randykitty (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scripted Violence

[edit]

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

Concept may be notable but this term is not normally used to describe it. The creator of the article, Chip Berlet, is trying to spread his pet term and has copied content from his works published elsewhere, which may constitute copyright violation. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? I have in fact proposed it as a disambiguation page but that got stomped on.

And what about "no personal attacks."

Please read the actual entry at Scripted Violence Chip.berlet (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scripting violence, performing terror: A discursive soliloquy by Sasanka Perera https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/53969519/

“In contemporary times, news of politically scripted violence and ‘spectacular’ acts of terror has become a global reality.”Chip.berlet (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Hamamoto: Empire of Death: Militarized Society and the Rise of Serial Killing and Mass Murder

August 2010 New Political Science 24(1):105-120 Chip.berlet (talk)

"As such, the essay also supplies a sorely-needed corrective to the under-theorization of race and racism

in understanding acts of scripted violence within hyper-militarized society."Chip.berlet (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

http://ukzn-dspace.ukzn.ac.za/handle/10413/8764

https://scholarworks.unr.edu/handle/11714/3409

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Scripted Violence" also describes fictional violence as in movies or professional wrestling.[45][46] StrayBolt (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but it seems to be the far more common sense, even using a Google scholar search. --Lambiam 18:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of scripted violence has existed for a very long time. The issue here is that it would seem it has been misidentified as a pet theory. Among the community that rearches political violence, you will find the term "scripted violence" used many times, in exactly this way. This entry serves a useful purpose, in that it seeks to inform the general audience about a concept that is well-established in the literature--the fact that you actually have, in this instance, one of the leading authors in this field working on the entry is a bonus.Dralseebiades (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you back this assertion up with some references to peer-reviewed scholarly literature? --Lambiam 18:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the current revision for multiple cites.Chip.berlet (talk) 03:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of the cited sources that actually use the term give a clear definition of what it is supposed to mean. In these sources, the term occurs in a column in The Guardian by Jason Wilson, who is a journalist, not a scholar. He writes: 'Their forums are full of what the researcher of the far right, Chip Berlet, calls “scripted violence”, where men exhort each other to such terrorism.' This shows that Chip Berlet has used the term, but not that it has gained any traction among researchers of political violence. Likewise, Sunshine refers to Berlet, putting the term systematically between quote marks. For the other sources in which the term occurs, it is doubtful whether they use the term in the sense defined in the article. Hamamoto discusses killers living out violent fantasies such as depicted in films, justified by military violence. They are not specifically politically or ideologically motivated. He uses the term once, without explanation. The "discursive soliloqui" by Perera also uses the term precisely once without further explanation, but apparently means spectacular acts of terrorism that are perpetrated like a theatrical performance, complete with rehearsal involving a written script. Finally, the article by Eisenbruch is about a Buddhist concept, Sɑmnaaŋ mɨn lʔɑɑ ("blighted endowment"), which is thought to be violence scripted into the life of a reincarnated individual according to their deeds in a previous life.

Altogether, this forms a murky image that does not clearly confirm the status of the term. Most of the sources that use the term appear to be there not because they support the statements of the article, but merely because they happen to contain the article title. --Lambiam 21:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are only a handful of peer review studies that mention either term. Most of the cites found online are to journalists using the term.

Used by a journalist: "What role do Trump, the Republican Party and the right-wing media play in encouraging and giving permission for political violence? Are they responsible for the violent acts committed by their public? Has eliminationist rhetoric and "scripted violence" become a central aspect of the American right's political strategy? What is the relationship between the racists and white supremacists of the "alt-right" and the increase in political violence under Trump? If the Democrats are successful in the upcoming midterm elections, how will Trump and the far right respond, given their consistent strategy of appealing to violence?" [47]

Used by a conservative: "This past weekend, that hatred became reality as well organized, and fully funded as violent leftists conspired to disrupt—and in one case halt entirely—Trump’s increasingly well-attended public rallies. Even more interesting, when the carefully planned and scripted violence occurred, Democrats, their media lapdogs and Republicans as well blamed it all on—Donald Trump! He was, after all, only getting the “violence” back that he was dishing out. Absent from this fabrication was the fact that for decades, nearly all violent demonstrations are scripted, fronted and funded by hardline Stalinists in league with the Democrats."

And note the term "stochastic terrorism" was coined by an anonymous blogger and picked up mostly by a few scholars who study risk management, and two sociologists in a book.

And please note that my scholarly chapter "Heroes Know Which Villains to Kill: How Coded Rhetoric Incites Scripted Violence" https://www.academia.edu/26640115/ was in a collection edited by two of the leading scholars on far right violence in the world; a fact you have chosen to overlook so far by implying my work is neither scholarly nor peer reviewed. I have had several other studies collected in peer review journals and books. If you like I can link my list of publications.Chip.berlet (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the only evidence for the use of this term to refer to this concept is your own published work, it seems to support my statement that it is your pet term. It is painfully obvious that the quote above from a "conservative" does not even use the term in question. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Spenser Sunshine has a PhD and used the term "scripted violence." Jason Wilson has a PhD and used the term "scripted violence." Are you suggesting they are my sock puppets who lack any agency or self respect? They credit the term to me because it is a matter of courtesy. Please correct me if I missed something. Did all the scholars and journalists who use the term "Stochastic Terrorism" credit the anonymous blogger? The use of double standards in this discussion is troubling.03:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chip.berlet (talk • contribs)
Whataboutism is not a debating technique that works in deletion discussions. Thus far, the evidence that this is a notable concept is underwhelming. If it is true, as one defender of the article stated, that among the community that researches political violence you will find the term "scripted violence" used many times in exactly this way, it should not be terribly difficult to establish its notability. In particular, you would expect Google books and scholar searches to turn up a lot of evidence. (They don't.) It does not help the case to introduce cites that use the term, but not in the sense presented in the article. That feels like sleight of hand. --Lambiam 09:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Wills, Jenny Heijun.“Scripted Violence, Scripted Deferral: Pre- and Post-Civil Rights Racial Innocence.” Jeunesse: Young People, Text, Culture, vol. 5, no. 1 (2013): 179-91. Stauffer, Carl Swarr. Acting out the myths : the power of narrative discourse in shaping the Zimbabwe Conflict of Matabeleland, 1980-1987. It's probably true there are more references to the concept in discussing professional wrestling than elsewhere, but such is the society in which we live. Political violence is topical today, but it's been an area of interest in the social sciences for a rather long time. Dralseebiades (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The multiple similar usages should pass WP:GNG and those other uses should be expanded. The article should be moved to "Scripted violence", the "V" should not be capitalized. StrayBolt (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Stray Bolt:talk) these changes improve the article substantially.Chip.berlet (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The term "scripted violence" has sufficient usage that the article should be retained. In its current form it can stand to be improved upon in various ways, but that is what Wikipedia does well. With regard to some of discussion here, I have the following thoughts:
- Calling this Chip Berlet's "pet term" is somewhat disparaging, but it is true that the term is often associated with Berlet and that he uses the term differently than some other usages, e.g., violence in movies, professional wrestling. This raises some issues about potential bias and Wikipedia's Conflict of interest and No original research policies. However, the article falls into a gray area with respect to those policies. The Wikipedia COI policy says that conflicts involve "contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." Contributing your ideas is not a conflict of interest, and if it were a conflict of interest, almost no one would be able to create or edit Wikipedia. If Berlet's concept of "scripted violence" was his idea alone, it would be "original research" and should not be included in Wikipedia, but in fact the term itself as well as the concept it denotes (the idea that leaders' public speech acts may incite violence) is well established and shared by many people besides himself. Even Μετάknowledge, in his original nomination for deletion, stated that the "concept may be notable." The question, therefore, is whether the term "scripted violence" is appropriate or whether this concept is already adequately covered in some other Wikipedia article. I've therefore looked at a few other articles to see if they already cover this concept.
- The hate speech article is one alternative term for this concept. It refers to "speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display that incites violence or prejudicial action" and therefore has a fair amount of overlap with the concept of "scripted violence." However, there are some differences. For one thing, the "scripted violence" article in its current form seems to describe two separated types of actors -- the "high profile political or social movement leaders" whose speech incites, and the perpetrators of violence -- "angry mobs, lone wolf terrorist, abusive spouses" -- whose actions are incited by the speech act, even though there is "no direct connection between the speaker and the perpetrators." Scripted violence can therefore be seen as a subtype of "hate speech," but hate speech could also be seen as a subtype of scripted violence, since some of the examples of scripted violence currently described in the article such as professional wrestling or violence in movies are not generally considered hate speech.
- I also looked the Wikipedia article on research on the effects of violence in mass media as a potential alternative. Again, there is some overlap, but the media violence article is primarily about communications media such as movies, video games, etc., whereas the concept of "scripted violence" seems to focus on the role of leaders or authors who instigate violence through their speech.
- Rather than deletion, therefore, I think we should leave the article in place and let it evolve. Some uses of the term have been added recently to the article which have already expanded it beyond the concept as it is used by Chip Berlet and others who are focused on studying right-wing extremism. The article does not yet do a very good job of organizing and integrating all of this material, but future edits by other Wikipedians may help address that. Given Chip Berlet's association with a specific usage of this term, I think it would be appropriate for the article to include some language along the lines of, "Chip Berlet and other researchers who have studied alt-right movements use this term to describe the relationship between movement leaders and the actions of their adherents." However, Chip should not do that editing himself. I also think it would be a good idea for Chip to avoid getting drawn into edit wars about the article if at all possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheldon Rampton (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article appears to be about a number of different topics with no real connection to each other. Politicians seeking to encourage their followers to engage in violence against their opponents has little to do with the on-stage violence in a play by William Shakespeare or the violence in a contemporary professional wrestling match. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances, And one man in his time plays many parts, His acts being seven ages… Then a soldier, Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard, Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel, Seeking the bubble reputation Even in the cannon's mouth." -- As You Like It Act II, Scene VII Line 138 by William Shakespeare — StrayBolt (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Metropolitan90. --Lambiam 19:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that an article appears to be about a number of different topics with no real connection to each other is not really an argument for deletion, but for a better explanation of the connection or for splitting and disambiguating. StrayBolt (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But none of the individual topics necessarily belongs under this title, nor are they covered well in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears that the recent comments here by users Metropolitan90 and Lambiam are reiterations of their previous support for deletion, so I thought I would reiterate my primary reason for thinking we should keep the article. My reason is that the concept behind Chip Berlet's use of this term is widely discussed and accepted by many people, namely the idea that certain types of speech incite actual violence. Moreover, I am unaware of any other article in Wikipedia that currently covers that concept. The closest I have been able to find is the hate speech article. Other related Wikipedia articles that I've found include: Incitement to ethnic or racial hatred, Shouting fire in a crowded theater, Imminent lawless action and Fighting words. If one of these articles (or some other article that I have not found) adequately covers the concept, I would be open to the idea of adding a subsection to that article which explains how the term "scripted violence" is used to discuss that concept. We could then turn the current scripted violence article into a redirect to that other article. However, we would need some agreement on where to redirect it. As for the fact that there are other uses of the phrase outside Chip Berlet's focus, those other uses also have significant public acceptance. I therefore cannot agree with Metropolitan90 when he writes, "Politicians seeking to encourage their followers to engage in violence against their opponents has little to do with the on-stage violence in a play by William Shakespeare or the violence in a contemporary professional wrestling match." In fact, there are many people who draw exactly that connection. Literally every time we have a mass shooting in the United States, you'll see a chorus of pro-gun voices pointing to violence in movies, TV and rap music as the real problem so they can argue that gun control is not necessary. Even outside the pro-gun movement, there is a robust literature, ranging from scholarly studies to newspaper editorials, claiming that "scripted violence" in the media normalizes and incites actual violence. See, for example, "The Cultural Epigenesis of Gender-Based Violence in Cambodia: Local and Buddhist Perspectives", which uses the phrase "scripted violence" repeatedly and links actual violence against women to "aspects of the culture related to sexual entitlement and prompted by viewing gang rape pornography." Sheldon Rampton (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sheldon Rampton:Thanks for your comments and searching. You might want to change one of your Keeps to a comment or something, for those bots keeping score. StrayBolt (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to my recent recommendation for deletion I had not argued for deletion but merely commented on contributions to the discussion by other editors. So it is not correct to describe my !vote as a "reiteration" of "previous support for deletion". My recommendation was, moreover, based specifically on the state of the article as it had become then – kind of a cross between a dab page and a sequence of essay stubs –, which is very different from how it was at the time of my earlier comments. --Lambiam 14:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research essay that mixes staged fictional violence such as in theater and film together with staged real violence for political purposes. Sandstein 12:53, 25 November 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 was that the article should be kept per WP:GEOLAND and that AfDs are not a substitute to article improvements. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bishandot

[edit]

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

Non-notable village unsupported by references. Article is peacock and original research beyond repair with any attempts at salvage or highlighting reverted by what appears to be sock puppets. PRehse (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Villages are notable per WP:GEOLAND. The issues raised are a matter of ordinary editing per WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew D. (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know that this article is not perfect but I told you that I am working to improve it. I will imply my improvements soon but it is not fair to delete anyone's article on personal problems. PRehse If you have any conflict with me, Talk with me! we can negotiate it. Atizaz Kiyani (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC) vote from sockpuppeteer struck WOPR (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This Village is notable per WP:GEOLAND. This article requires only minor edits and should be kept. Papurat (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet post (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raja Atizaz Ahmed Kiyani) SpinningSpark 17:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- I've struck your second keep, you are only entitled to !vote once. You are also not entitled to close this discussion, please do not try to do that again. The article requires far more than minor edits. Large swathes have been repeatedly removed and reinserted (by you) which are entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 15:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - My apologies on the double vote. At the time, one of them was unsigned. SpinningSpark 16:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~No Problem Dear Friend. We are human beings, it is impossible for us to stop doing misunderstandings and mistakes. It is not your fault, Dear Brother. Papurat (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)~~ Striking sockpuppet post (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raja Atizaz Ahmed Kiyani) SpinningSpark 17:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Andrew D. said, Villages are notable per WP:GEOLAND. The issue are no as serious as to delete someone's effort. Everyone is volunteer here and tone of every author is different so you cannot criticize on anyone's writing skill and except Administrator, No one can decide fate of any article. So, This article should be kept. Shidag 17:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet post (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raja Atizaz Ahmed Kiyani) SpinningSpark 17:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have added alot of new citations and references as well as sources to verify the source of this article Bishandot. From now on, anyone can edit Bishandot with relevant information and no one is allowed to revert it without a serious cause. Raja Atizaz Ahmed Kiyani (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC) comment from sockpuppeteer struck WOPR (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've refactored your post into a more conventional form (ie, new posts to the bottom rather than inserted in the nomination statement). Please read WP:OWN. You cannot tell other editors what they can do with the article. SpinningSpark 11:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very Much Spinningspark for your help. I have improved Bishandot very much. You can check and kindly inform me with your response.Raja Atizaz Ahmed Kiyani (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC) comment from sockpuppeteer struck WOPR (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GEOLAND it is a town of around 4700 (see page 24)with a school, and is part of the Rawalpindi-IV constituency:) Coolabahapple (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Clearly exists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Bajroshakti

[edit]

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

Fails to fulfill any criteria under "Newspapers, magazines and journals" of WP:NMEDIA and article has no reliable sources. It didn't even make the newspaper list by circulations (pdf, in a govt. site). ~ Nahid ^Talk 20:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete per nom. Fails WP:NMEDIA. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NMEDIA. Only reference is the newspaper itself. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:51, 25 November 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. See WP:WAX. Sandstein 12:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

.224 Kritzeck

[edit]

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

Non-notable ammunition, sources are unreliable including self-reference to this wikipedia page - no significant coverage in reliable sources Polyamorph (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Information is relevant on Google and other topics as well. I don't understand this page is being bothered when there are other pages that have less information such as .14-222, .17-223,7.7×58mm Arisaka,9×39mm,.20 Ferguson Ace, .20 vartarg, .204 Ruger. If .224 Kritzeck is to be removed then theses other pages should be Reviewed as well! Monkeybusiness1245 (talk) 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, indeed they should. Polyamorph (talk) 07:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 13:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wildcat (custom) cartridges are rarely notable, particularly if they surfaced just in the last year. I'm unable to find much more than forum posts and amazon listings - nothing remotely RSey or approaching SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE per Polyamorph and Icewhiz.--RAF910 (talk) 19:22, 22 November 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 Wanna One. Consensus that he doesn't pass individual NMUSIC or NACTOR (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lai Guan-lin

[edit]

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

Not independently notable from the 11-member band he is part of. Polyamorph (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ Redirect. He was a part of a reality TV show, but doesn't pass WP:NACTOR. The TV show put them into a boy band, but he isn't notable outside the band. Found a few articles on him but it was the same kpop fan website. The only thing that can possibly be an argument is "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" but even then there's not that much of a cult following around the person. Awsomaw (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT to Wanna One, the band of which he is a major member. Article can be resurrected in the future if he develops an independent career. -Zanhe (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, redirect does sound like a better choice here. Awsomaw (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 12:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issaries, Inc.

[edit]

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

Article on a defunct corporation has zero references (a link purporting to be a reference is actually its defunct homepage). A standard BEFORE (Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, newspapers.com) finds only one passing mention. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Greg Stafford. I may not have the time today, but there is a whole chapter on the company in Designers & Dragons that I can pull from. BOZ (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, as part of my !vote I noted there was a source to be added, which I did. Although, I would like to hear more about what Newimpartial found in Pyramid, as that may be very relevant to the discussion but was glossed over or perhaps just missed; was it this excerpt you found, or something else? BOZ (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - the chapter in Volume 4 of Designers & Dragons is pp. 53-68, and is dedicated entirely to Issaries. The company was also discussed in other reliable sources such as "Dragons in the stacks: An introduction to role‐playing games and their value to libraries", Volume 2 of Pyramid and Geeknative, exemplified by this article and this one.

A foolish nomination; the nominator should review WP:NOTTEMPORARY as well as WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Also, quite tactless to place the nomination so soon after Greg Stafford's death but I will AGF regardless, as is required. Still, speedy keep, please. Newimpartial (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The two links you provided to articles on "geeknative.com" - per the About page, it is "a blog for gamers" [48]. It lists only a single writer (Andrew Girdwood), and a quick run of it through Google News finds that its reporting has not, itself, been referenced by unambiguously RS sources. Finally, it has no published offline presence, such as a physical address, that it could accept liability for its content. By every possible definition, it is a personal hobby blog, WP:RSSELF applies, and it is not RS. The Designers & Dragons reference is fine - I suppose - however, companies require significant coverage. Mere proof that a company exists (or existed) is not evidence of notability. Chetsford (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford, a 15-page chapter in Designers & Dragons is significant coverage in terms of that source, not "proof of existence" (for which a catalogue would be sufficient). Please don't be daft.

Geeknative is exemplary of source self-published by a recognized expert in the field, recognized through their publication in recognized reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the nomination, but it sounds like the sources are there and fairly solid. Withdraw maybe? Hobit (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit - I appreciate the suggestion, but I would dispute that a reference in a single book meets our standards of significant coverage for profitmaking companies. The two mentions on "geeknative.com" are not, in my opinion, anywhere in the the same galaxy as RS. If this were submitted, tomorrow, as a new article to AFC it would have a roughly zero chance of making it through. (For instance, here's a company article that was correctly rejected by both KylieTastic and Curb Safe Charmer; with coverage in TechCrunch and Bloomberg it is more thoroughly referenced and the subject of more expansive coverage than this article but it still - quite rightly - does not meet the community's commonly held criteria of what constitutes significant coverage for an organization. As of now we only have proof "Issaries, Inc." may have once existed. That is a different standard than whether it is "notable" (i.e. prominent, worthy of note or acclaim, the subject of widespread scrutiny).) Chetsford (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford, please try to be both CIVIL and cogitative - if you were to read the 15-page chapter in Designers & Dragons, you would see a thoughtful history of the company's history and contribution, which goes well beyond "proof of existence" - I am quite confident that there is no 15-page treatment of AccelFoods in any independently published dead tree book, anywhere.

And you seem to have missed a key distinction when you brought up AfC. Of course the current, unsourced article would not pass AfC. Nor should it. AfC is a vehicle for improving draft articles before they are made public, and it doesn't accept unsourced stubs, which is what we have here.

However, except for BLP's, being an unsourced stub is not grounds for deletion, nor should it be. The question is the *existence* of RS, which has been amply demonstrated here. Also, your comments "not in the same galaxy as RS" - "may have once existed" are quite unCIVIL and lacking in good faith. Please stop choosing such disruptive language. Newimpartial (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Applejuicefool (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable games company. Being defunct is utterly irrelevant to its notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Granting nominator his wish to relist to get a conclusive consensus to keep the article. The last 2 keep votes haven't brought any guidelines or sources mentions to address the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also found 'Dragons in the stacks: An introduction to role‐playing games and their value to libraries', which could be added as a reference, and P&P-Rollenspiel: der kollektive Zugang zu utopischen Weltentwürfen und individuellen Phantasie-Konstrukten (which states that Issaries was founded in 1997 - the date the share offer was issued?)[49]. The external link is defunct, but this [50] has the company information. I would add that my searches bring up results which have no previews, or to which I don't have access, however, there does appear to be enough to satisfy WP:GNG. If not, then merge to Greg Stafford. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So ...

Logos Verlag is a predatory / pay for play publisher.
"The Stafford Codex" says it is run by Greg Stafford, the apparent owner of this company.

We really need to be more attentive to vetting sources and try to avoid just throwing up a bunch of Google search results which is how most of these RPG AFDs go. It creates the outward appearance of a well-sourced topic that withers at the slightest scrutiny of the actual sources. While sources like "geeknative.com" and "staffordcodex.com" may be fine for Everipedia, they aren't for this thing - Wikipedia.
So as of now it seems we have a reference in a book (Designers & Dragons) which the RSN has been unable to reach a consensus as to its reliability, a two-line reference in a book from a predatory publisher, a couple posts on something called "geeknative.com", and the owner of the company's own website (or "codex" as he calls it). The only RS here is Dragons in the Stacks (which I'll have to take on GF since it's offline) ... a single RS does not a notable company make. If this were any other corporation - an industrial dry cleaner, or a typewriter manufacturer - it would have been stamped closed and delete no ifs, ands, or buts. The standards of significant coverage for game companies are exactly the same as the standards for industrial dry cleaners. Mere proof of existence is not proof of notability. Chetsford (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was not proposing the "Stafford Codex" link as a source, but as a replacement external link for the broken one. You have not mentioned the article 'Dragons in the stacks: An introduction to role‐playing games and their value to libraries', which appeared in the professional librarians' journal Collection Building.[51] RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"You have not mentioned the article 'Dragons in the stacks" ... no, actually, I did: "the only RS here is Dragons in the Stacks" [52]. That this was missed underscores, I believe, my appeal for greater caution and attention to be paid in approaching AFDs on many of these highly suspect RPG articles that have been air-dropped en masse on WP. (e.g. I would love to AfD Greg Stafford but I know it would never pass because it's been crammed full of 13 fluff sources like personal websites, company blogs of little basement game designers, fanzines, etc. ... not one of them is RS, but we have some editors who are just doing a quick scan of articles to see if it looks somewhat legit rather than subjecting the sources to policy-based scrutiny.) Chetsford (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to AfD Greg Stafford but I know it would never pass - and the reason it would never pass, Chetsford, has nothing to do with "fluff sources", and everything to do with policy. Per AFD, what matters is not the sources used in the article, but the available sources. Per GNG, Greg Stafford and his work are discussed in multiple, independent, reliable dead tree sources as well as multiple online RS. Per AUTHOR, he produced multiple award-winning works that have been extensiVely reviewed in RS - and if he has produced even one such work meeting NBOOK he would meet NAUTHOR so long as the biographical sources exist, which they do, in spades.

Your jihad against RPG articles is completely against policy, thinly veiled by your misreading of AFD and strongly motivated by IDONTLIKEIT, as demonstrated especially in your Monica Valentinelli AfD (the second) and the Hillfolk AfD you launched in response to my citing the petitioner / grantor mechanic from Dramasystem as am insight into actual Wikidrama. Your Quixotic crusade against such articles, Chet, is doing you no favors either to your hit rate or to your reputation. Making snide remarks about recently deceased and well-beloved creators is not a great look on you, I think. Newimpartial (talk)

Comment: I will state here that the nominator failed again to get another supporting delete vote, this time after two weeks involving a relist, so in my mind the initial close was once again valid, and upon relist the first new respondent was another Keep. By the way, this comment was pure comedy gold on the part of the nominator: "my objective is never to get an article deleted" - uhhh, then why the strong focus on deletion rather than discussion? AFD is Articles for Deletion, not Articles for Discussion. Discussion is done on an article's talk page, or a wikiproject talk page, or a user's talk page, or RSN, or something like that. If you bring an article to AFD without doing anything like that, then yes, your objective IS to get an article deleted, so "never" seems highly facetious and fallacious in this context based on my experiences with you and the many AFDs you have started, and the far smaller number of pure discussions I have seen you start. Your comment above of how you "would love to AfD Greg Stafford but I know it would never pass" is very telling in this regard. (Ugh, and I'm sure people wonder why I don't usually bother debating deletionists... what is the point, when they are usually so single-minded in the hunt for more things to delete.) BOZ (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, thanks to BOZ sourcing the core information. /Julle (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael R. Ash

[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BASIC:

Many various WP:BEFORE source searches, including searches for book reviews, are not providing independent significant coverage of the subject or his works in reliable sources.
I found a couple of book reviews in primary sources, which in this case, are publications owned and controlled by the LDS Church, but primary sources are not usable to establish notability.
Otherwise, there's not much out there at all in terms of usable sources for Wikipedia's purposes.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 14:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems to exist solely to publicize the subject, given its creation and maintenance by some highly-focused editors and its links to sites promoting the subject's work. So in that respect the article is a violation of policy (WP:NOTPROMO). As to notability (assuming that there is a notability claim in the article, which is not obvious), search confirms the nominator's assessment that the subject lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so the subject does not seem to pass WP:GNG anyway. Bakazaka (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would help if there is significant independent coverage (i.e. outside of those associated with the church) of the author, but there isn't, and I can't see reviews for his books outside of the publications related to the church. Fails WP:NAUTHOR.Hzh (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete written like a puff piece, not notable --DannyS712 (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Budha Subba Music

[edit]

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

Non-notable company that fails WP:CORPDEPTH, as per several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 14:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - no sufficient sourcing to reach WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. No evident redirect target. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, reads like an advertisement --DannyS712 (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Music Nepal

[edit]

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

Per several WP:BEFORE source searches, including custom searches, this company fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 14:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article fails the criteria for notability of a corporation at WP:CORPDEPTH because the subject does not have significant coverage in primary sources. - tucoxn\^talk 20:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, no significant independent coverage --DannyS712 (talk) 01:54, 25 November 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 Reed Publishing. Sandstein 12:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hibiscus Records

[edit]

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

Per WP:BEFORE source searching, a non-notable company that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move as this really should be associated with Kiwi Pacific Records, its parent company, and notable producer of Maori and Pacific music. The origin of Kiwi Pacific Records was the notable NZ publisher A H Read and Co NealeFamily (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 14:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Reed Publishing, as per NealeFamily. The Reed Publishing article will need expanding to cover Kiwi Records too. While separately, Hibiscus and Kiwi may not meet WP:GNG, they are significant enough to warrant a section in the parent company's article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

W. Don Ladd

[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC, as per WP:BEFORE source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments gven in simlar discussions. If North America truly disagreed with the bishop's view, he would take on the only sourced to a bare-bones date listing blog articles on bishops, instead of sourced to full bio articles written by third parties articles as we have on these general authorities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Regarding the above !vote:

It does not provide a valid rationale for article retention.
Its thesis is utterly unclear; this article and deletion nomination is about W. Don Ladd, not some other subject.
Primary sources are just not usable to establish notability.
There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see this article passing WP:GNG at all, I also think that Johnpacklambert has created a huge amount of these articles a lot of them failing current basic GNG and seems to have a conflict of interest with wikipedia over Latter Day Saints. Govvy (talk) 09:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the personally-directed accusations are necessary to discuss the notability of the article's subject, so it's probably more fruitful to focus on whether there is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, since that is the basis for nomination. It might also be helpful for Johnpacklambert to clarify what "arguments above" means, since the only thing above that comment is a nomination for deletion and some delsorts. Perhaps a copy/paste to the wrong discussion? Bakazaka (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 14:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant independent coverage found. I don't see any convincing claim of notability, or any real prospect of being able to source an article properly. --Michig (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erich W. Kopischke

[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC.

The 2008 Deseret Morning News Church Almanac listed in the article presumably provides some coverage, but multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one. The remaining sources in the article are primary, which do not establish notability.

Various WP:BEFORE searches are providing primary source coverage such as a sermon by the subject, but otherwise only fleeting passing mentions and name checks. Not finding the necessary independent, significant coverage in reliable sources to qualify an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments above. If North America truly disagreed with the bishop's view, he would take on the only sourced to a bare-bones date listing blog articles on bishops, instead of sourced to full bio articles written by third parties articles as we have on these general authorities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Regarding the above !vote:

It does not provide a valid rationale for article retention.
Its thesis is utterly unclear; this article and deletion nomination is about Erich W. Kopischke, not some other subject.
Primary sources are just not usable to establish notability.
There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, even if there were notability guidelines that say they are "presumed" notability as per WP:NPERSON "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.". Dom from Paris (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 13:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subject does not meet WP:GNG, and consensus is that LDS leaders are not presumed notable (see discussions in 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018). Sources in article are not independent (Liahona, lds.org, Church News, and an almanac branded as Deseret News but actually assembled by Church News staff) or not reliable ("Grampa Bill"). Search finds passing mentions in routine coverage of church announcements and events, some quotes in a wire service article about the church's use of social media, and a couple of paragraphs in a Deseret News piece about RootsTech genealogy successes. It doesn't add up to significant coverage of the subject. Open to alternatives if significant coverage emerges. Bakazaka (talk) 05:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Ionian Sea earthquake

[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:NEARTHQUAKE Mikenorton (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to pass WP:GNG with articles like [53] and after the fact [54], [55] SportingFlyer talk 12:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are just media reports in the few days afterwards, articles need to have enduring notability per WP:NOTNEWS. Mikenorton (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's had continual news coverage for the last week, including today. The articles don't seem routine to me. SportingFlyer talk 00:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those links are not suitable as references in our EQ articles because the reporters and the agencies that they work for are not authorities on EQs. Dawnseeker2000 09:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dawnseeker2000: That's the first time I've ever seen that argument presented in any AfD. Can you cite a policy which backs up your assertion? SportingFlyer talk 10:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use inappropriate (non-authoritative) news stories in our earthquake articles. Dawnseeker2000 08:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dawnseeker2000: That doesn't answer my question, especially considering at least two of the three sources I've cited are WP:RS (the Express is from the Star line of newspapers, but could still be a WP:RS). There is also continuing coverage of the event: [56] SportingFlyer talk 08:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all the news stories are from the first few days. The one that you've added from euronews reports on a state of emergency that was declared a week earlier. Apart from that there are aftershocks, just like all other earthquakes, but, without significant further damage/casualties, it doesn't make it any more notable. Still nothing to suggest "enduring notability". Mikenorton (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise notability was dependent on the extent of the damage. I would've thought a major earthquake with major international news coverage and ongoing local news coverage would have been enough to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 11:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added several additional sources to the article as well. Clear WP:GNG pass IMO. SportingFlyer talk 11:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – When constructing an encyclopedia, and specifically regarding EQ articles, content contributors need to ask themselves: "In 25–50 years, what will the locals' memory be of the event?". In the case of this shock, it is one of many, and it does not stand out as being deadly or destructive. Yes, there were some minor effects, but in time, the Greek's memory of it will fade and become confused with the other more significant events. WP:Earthquakes is attempting to refine our collection of articles and polish the acceptable entries in our lists. The removal of this article is part of that process. Remember, WP is not a collection of indiscriminate information. It is selective. Dawnseeker2000 22:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the island was very badly damaged from a 1953 earthquake, it'll probably be something along the lines of "we shouldn't revise the building codes, there was that other earthquake in 2018." This article is one of the major earthquakes of the year and clearly passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 23:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Looking at WP:NEARTHQUAKE, it seems that, to be notable, an earthquake has to be over magnitude 7, and/or cause deaths. However, WP:NEARTHQUAKE is an essay, not a guideline or policy - and the 1953 Zakynthos earthquake does not meet those criteria, either, suggesting that they need some rethinking. This earthquake, and the damage it caused, was reported around the world. I would consider 120 uninhabitable homes, plus damage to the port, to be significant damage. I was not aware that notability was established by trying to predict what memories of an event would be in 25-50 years time - that seems unanswerable, as who knows what might happen in those 25-50 years? And saying "it is one of many" does not seem a useful criterion to exclude it, either - there are 188 pages under the category "Mass shootings in the United States". RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 1953 Ionian earthquake caused over 400 deaths, so was unarguably notable based on WP:NEARTHQUAKE. The comment about how memorable it will be, is really trying to answer the question of "enduring notability" referred to in WP:NOTNEWS. In the end, the real question is whether an earthquake causes significant damage and/or casualties. WP:NEARTHQUAKE may be an essay, but one that has been in use in determining earthquake article notability for more than eight years. There have been no suggested changes during that period, so it seems to be doing something right (for clarity, I drew these "guidelines" up in response to a series of AfDs on minor earthquake following quite extensive discussion - see that relevant talk page). Mikenorton (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In that case, the 1953 Ionian earthquake article is missing significant information - it makes no mention of any deaths at all. As I said, I would consider the amount of damage the 2018 Ionian Sea earthquake caused (as described) to be significant, but I don't know if there are any guidelines about what constitutes significant damage. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Information was missing, although I've now added something on the death toll. As to what constitutes "significant damage" - that's a matter of debate. Mikenorton (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the essay is "doing something right," essays (nor, even, policy-confirmed SNGs) do not take precedence over WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 04:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However to quote from WP:GNG "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". The latter policy includes a requirement for "enduring notability", which you have failed to establish. Mikenorton (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A requirement which is part of WP:NOTNEWS - and considering this is one of the major earthquakes of the year, was reported internationally, and is not a routine news story, clearly does not apply here. SportingFlyer talk 10:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NEARTHQUAKE isn't a policy so we should go with GNG - and from what I see, it does follow. Juxlos (talk) 18:43, 17 November 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. postdlf (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of FTP server software

[edit]

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

Adds nothing to the longer existing Comparison of FTP server software packages and is in effect hijacking of the page "List of FTP server software" The Banner talk 19:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply a list of notable FTP server software. Whether Wikipedia should be a comparison site for the badly sourced and 8 or 9 years out of date tables of features that FTP servers have is another matter. I think that Comparison of FTP server software packages should be deleted instead, if the two cannot co-exist. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Could be, but I also see a user destroying the original article under false pretences to get this list. And moving a draft back to main space within the hour after being moved to draft space as being "Undersourced, incubate in draftspace". The Banner talk 20:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - That edit doesn't make much sense unless you read it in context to the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#17:21:02,_29_October_2018_review_of_submission_by_DLLHell. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I tend to trust the experience of @Boleyn: in this. The Banner talk 09:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this to draft as it had no references at all and seemed to be an incomplete list. Some work was done to address this. There seem to be concerns about both this and the comparison article. Boleyn (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least the comparison-article requires that the programs have a valid article on Wikipedia. This list does not have that requirement. That fact that the list is created as response on a turned down draft-article (as advertising), gives me bad vibes. The Banner talk 13:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This list requires that all entries have an article, as stated in the editnotice. You will note that the comparison list contains several programs without articles despite that being a requirement. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A good editor would have removed those programs on he spot... The Banner talk 16:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did and you put them back in! — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are not referring to this article destroying edit? The Banner talk 17:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This would be more useful list if it told people what platforms (Windows, Linux, Mac?) is needed for each software, maybe minimum specs also. Govvy (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem with the comparison article is that the specs change often. Some information could be added but try to think of how often it may need updating when deciding what to add. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article was created using the redirect left behind when the long-standing list article was moved to Comparison of FTP server software packages last month. The renamed article is fine and there is no need for a second article. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a content fork to Comparison of FTP server software packages that serves no inherent purpose. Ajf773 (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The creator of this article is by now blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. See: User:Frayae. The Banner talk 00:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Didn't know the other article existed, this one isn't needed then. Govvy (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G5 and so tagged. regular old delete per StarryGrandma. Reyk _YO! 15:02, 22 November 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 for keep (or weak keep) per NMUSIC2, as well as potentially via sourcing/reviews, despite stated need for cleanup. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacinta Brondgeest

[edit]

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

Non-notable American-Australian musician; appears on obscure charts and wins obscure contests Orange Mike | Talk 23:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think there is enough in aggregation for this subject to be considered just notable. Aoziwe (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the Australian chart position for the song she wrote for the Saddle Club can be confirmed, but there is nothing regarding this song that mentions her other than her songwriting credit, so it doesn't establish any notability. The chart placings on the Billboard Hot Dance Club Play Chart can also be confirmed – here is a PDF copy of her biggest hit "Sunshine" reaching no. 7 on that chart [57]. But that's all there is – I can't find anything that verifies any of the prose or biographical detail in the article, and the songwriting competitions are non-notable. Richard3120 (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NMUSIC #2: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." [1] Plus, this allmusic bio. But someone really needs to clean up this article with these two sources... Cause I don't think Amy Winehouse is a member, nor Paramore is a past member (I'm gonna fix some things on there right now so you might not see that). Awsomaw (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Awsomaw, meets WP:NMUSIC #2. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Allmusic bio (the text of which had been copied and pasted into the article - now removed) plus coverage in Keyboard magazine from 2006, plus the various hits on a minor chart (not the country's national music chart, these being the Hot 100 and Billboard 200), add up to some sort of notability, but the article almost needs WP:TNT. --Michig (talk) 10:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solving The Rubiks Cube

[edit]

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

This is just an badlywritten version of the Beginners' method in rubiks cube website. Isn't this is the equivalent of a game walkthrough. This is certainly not the only way to solve a rubik's cube(for beginners too), so this has no significance in my opinion Daiyusha (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a very poorly written article. If we are going to have space on how to solve a Rubik cube it should be merged with the article on Rubik's cube, but it should be written in better English than this article. Vorbee (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. What isn't a "how to" is already covered in Rubik's Cube § Solutions and Optimal solutions for Rubik's Cube. SpinningSpark 15:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is room for Wikipedia to give a more reader-friendly, lower-level discussion about solving the cube. It is a big and important topic, with many books, many sources about it. I don't think the existence of a general dictum "Wikipedia is not a how-to" whatever matters too much. We certainly can and do explain how to do many things, probably to play chess and Go and checkers and other games. wp:NOTHOWTO doesn't apply exactly, either. This is not a cheat-sheet for how to get through a commercial video game; it is far more fundamental. An entry-level discussion about how to solve the cube, which links at appropriate places to more complicated topics, could be a good article to have. --Doncram (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems fairly clear that information on solving a Rubiks Cube belongs on the page for the Rubiks Cube. - Sdkb (talk) 06:28, 21 November 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. postdlf (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of protected heritage sites in the German-speaking Community of Belgium

[edit]

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

This is a list of lists, category pages, if properly labelled should be enough for this, as they do the same task. Daiyusha (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:NOTDUP. Lists and categories complement each other, each with different functions. That they overlap is not a reason to delete. This one in particular is not a beautiful list, but you can add useful information to it that you can't add to a category. Images, information about how many such sites are in each area, what kind of site, etc. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lists of lists are useful and not against guidelines or policy. There is even a category for them and also guidelines for creating them here WP:LISTOFLISTS. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's beyond me why people even want to bring things like this to AfD. SpinningSpark 15:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It could be improved, including that perhaps the separate lists do not need to be split out, but that is not a reason to delete. The deletion nominator needs to read and consider wp:CLNT. --Doncram (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Squirrel Entertainment

[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:CORP. I cannot find significant discussion of this company in multiple reliable sources. References provided are mostly directory entries and mentions in the context of discussing the video game in blogs. 65 unique Google results. ... discospinster _talk 03:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've stripped the article to two refs RS-worthy. PCGamer 1, PCGamer 2 are also lying around. I tend to agree though that these are not focused on the developer. --Izno (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are references but these only prove the company exists, not that it's notable. WP:CORPDEPTH is not established. Chetsford (talk) 19:08, 17 November 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) JC7V (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mesozoic mammals of Madagascar

[edit]

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

There is absolutely no reason why there should be a specific article focusing on Madagascan mammals of the Mesozoic (especially because the island only formed in the Late Cretaceous). It would make more sense to focus on other areas (such as China) with a more diverse mammalian fauna if at all, but in any case it would be redundant somewhat with Evolution of mammals. I think the only reason this article exists was to create a parent article for a Featured topic. It doesn’t meet the “Presumed” requirement of WP:GNG, and though cites a lot of sources, “significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article.” There are plenty of sources for the Mesozoic decapod crustaceans of Madagascar (like this, this, and this) but that doesn’t merit an article User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The featured topic page[58] state sit covers some fossils that are not covered in other articles, so we would at least need to find somewhere else to put that information before doing anything here. FunkMonk (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’d argue it’d be best to wait until those undetermined fossils are given some kind of identification before bringing them up anywhere, or give a small sentence in their respective articles (like the multituberculate molar would be mentioned in Multituberculata) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mesozoic mammals is a topic - it's a WP category, and also one in other publications, in general and in Madagascar specifically (eg 'Madagascar's Mesozoic Secrets' in Scientific American [59], Mesozoic Mammals: The First Two-Thirds of Mammalian History [60]) and university courses (eg [61]). It therefore meets WP:GNG Other publications also have articles about Mesozoic mammals in other countries/continents (eg Science China Press 'Mesozoic mammals—what do we know from China?' [62]). The fact that Wikipedia does not yet have articles on Mesozoic mammals of other countries/continents is not a reason to delete this article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah and there’s this, this, and this about the Mesozoic decapod crustaceans of Madagascar. Does that mean it should have its own article? No, because “significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article” User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RebeccaGreen. The nom writes "[t]here is absolutely no reason why there should be a specific article focusing on Madagascan mammals". I could equally argue "there is absolutely no reason why there shouldn't be a specific article focusing on Madagascan mammals". It's an invalid argument either way – Wikipedia doesn't have to have articles on anything, but it can have articles on everything. No policy-based rationale for deletion has been advanced. SpinningSpark 11:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t meet the “Presumed” requirement of WP:GNG, and I’d like to remind you Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, article has plenty of independent references. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm honestly not seeing much of a problem with this article. Content, form and sourcing are fine, so the remaining question is whether the article fits appropriately into the current subject organization (as essentially was the issue with the recent lion articles brouhaha). That also seems fine by me; it's a useful hub article. Clearly it will never get as much material as an equivalent one about, e.g., China, but arguments that "we should rather be focusing on topic X instead of Y" are not what has generated Wikipedia - quite the opposite ;) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems rather trivial to have an entire article about a loosely connected group of less than 10 species on a land mass that formed in the last stages of the time period it encompasses User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The island formed in the last stages. The landmass formed long before that. SpinningSpark 21:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point still stands, it is largely trivial to give an article to one small group of creatures on one small corner of the world. The entirety of the Jurassic section is just a rehash of the taxonomy section of Ambondro. The first paragraph of Cretaceous is an incredibly long summary of Maevarano Formation (which could probably be reduced to a sentence), and remaining paragraphs talk at length about undescribed teeth which usually aren’t considered notable until they’re given at least a genus designation User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per RebeccaGreen. Just because someone has not bothered to create an article yet about another notable subject does not mean an article on another notable subject should be deleted. Who decides the order of notability and the order of article creation? If we are to go that route a lot of articles will be pulled down. There is significant and in-depth coverage from several independent and reliable sources. This article therefore satisfies the general notability guidelines and merits a stand alone article. Reading the nominator's rationale and examining the article for myself, I have so far seen no evidence that this article fails GNG or should be deleted because of WP:NOT or any policy for that matter. I don't like it or what about X are not good reasons for delete. Tamsier (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 10:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Elrich

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was AfD'd back in April. Recently recreated in the very promotional manner now on the page. Looks at the history, and you can see that the article was created for promotional reasons, since "While he is likely to win and has served the community for many years, he does not have a wikipedia page, meanwhile his opponents do." The G4 speedy tag without rationale, so here we are. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I knew this name sounded familiar. (He’s from my state.) He has reliable sources out there like Washington Post and WTOP (probably the most trusted news source around here), and significant coverage (but currently this article is relying heavily on WaPo). If someone is willing to fix the promotional tone, then I say keep it.Trillfendi (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick google of the name came up with quite a bit of press, looks sufficient for notability. The promo mess needs to be cleaned up, but that means it needs to be fixed, not deleted. XeroxKleenex (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - some pruning has taken it from insanely to moderately (a full blown axe will be needed to get it down to even mildly) promotional, so I no longer think it warrants deletion on those grounds. Thus we then get to notability issue. Now the coverage mentioned by @Trillfendi and XeroxKleenex: exists, but it also did for the last AfD - at that point it was strongly agreed that being a councillor of the county was insufficient under the strict WP:NPOV rules. However, he has |now been elected for the county executive position. This position can veto legislation as well as executive authority so must be like a mayor. Given the population for the county, this seems to be a sufficient position as regards WP:NPOV - unless someone disagrees?. Nosebagbear (talk)
Delete. Mere candidacy was definitely not a legitimate reason for the article to have been returned to mainspace when it was — but at the county level of government, even having now won the election still isn't enough in and of itself. Immediate notability upon declaration of election attaches only to officeholders at the federal or state levels, not at the county or city council levels — at the county council level, the notability test is neither "automatic freebie upon winning election" nor "the range and volume and depth of media coverage that is simply expected to exist for any county councillor indeed exists", but "the person can be sourced to a range and volume and depth of media coverage that plainly marks him out as approaching nationalized notability." But that's not present here at all — there's not even one source here that moves beyond the purely local, and the majority of them aren't even about him to any non-trivial degree either, but just mention his name in the process of being bog-standard political coverage of the council as a whole. The only ones that focus on him at all are campaign coverage, which again is simply expected to exist in the local media for every candidate in every election and thus does not automatically constitute evidence that any particular candidacy is special at all.
So no, the office he has been elected to is not one that guarantees him automatic inclusion rights just for holding that office — it's one where the notability test is the ability to mark him out as a special case who is more notable than most other people who hold the equivalent office in other counties, but none of the sourcing here is doing that at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article definitely needs to be cleaned up, but he is now the executive of a very large county, not a failed candidate or very minor officeholder. There is already significant coverage in reliable sources (e.g. Washington Post), something that is likely to increase going forward. Ultimately, with re-writes to improve POV, keeping the article does nothing to hurt Wikipedia but can hurt the ability of people to learn more about their local elected officials. PrimaPrime (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The merely expected range and depth and volume of local coverage is not enough to make a county officeholder notable in and of itself — every county executive in every county can always show as much local coverage as this, because covering local politics is local media's job. So the notability test for officeholders at the county level is not just "local coverage exists", it is "coverage beyond the local, mounting a credible claim of nationalized significance, exists" — but nothing which would get him over that bar is being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's source-bombed and promotional: much of the coverage of him specifically is trivial, and there are a lot of references which don't matter. There's a good feature article on him, though. SportingFlyer talk 04:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs a major rewrite, top to bottom, to say the least. However, Elrich certainly merits an article (for example, his predecessor Leggett has one) and I'm not really comfortable with the precedent a deletion would provide. Again, a major rewrite is needed, however. Westroopnerd (talk) 07:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isiah Leggett has an article for having been state-level chair of the Democratic Party, not for having been a county executive per se. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Though keep votes outnumber deletes, I find that the arguments on both sides are substantial enough to warrant a redirect to further continue the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 00:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Bearcat and Sportingflyer. Per WP:AUD, coverage must exist past the merely routine local stuff to give any indication of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although Mr Elrich is a local politician, I see that Wikipedia has many many entries for people who do not rise above the level of local politician or local celebrity. Montgomery County is a large and heavily populated county in the US, with a budget that is larger than that of several states. There is a long list of Montgomery County politicians included on Wikipedia, few of which have any more claim to fame than Mr Elrich. If Mr Elrich's entry is to be deleted for non-relevance, a similar argument can be made for (to name a few) Isiah Leggett, Doug Duncan, Neal Potter, Sidney A. Katz, Charles W. Gilchrist, Nancy Navarro, Nancy Floreen, Robin Ficker, etc. Although a few of these have risen to slightly higher state level politics, many have not.Magates63 (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Please note that this editor has a total of 5 edits, and now appears at an AfD discussion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Not sure why the number of edits I have or have not made is relevant, as there is a big red box on this article requesting input on whether or not it should be deleted. Didn't know the discussion was limited to the cognoscenti. WP:DNB All Montgomery County Executives, of which Elrich is now the latest, have been warranted significant enough to have separate wikipedia entries. Simply trying to understand why this particular Executive is deemed less worthy than others with similar levels of national non-notability. Is the request for deletion politically motivated? Anyways, back to my life! Ciao!.Magates63 (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup I was a delete vote in the first AfD, but the subject is now the executive-elect of Montgomery County. I continue to believe that county executives must be evaluated on their own merit, as I believe a county executive of a county of at least regional prominence, merits an article when it can be said more that "Jane Doe was the County Executive of X." In this case, there is significant amounts of independent coverage that can piece together a solid article, even if nearly all of the coverage is local. --Enos733 (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The position in a significant county alone should make him notable. Most of his predecessors are notable. Even his opponents, aspiring to this as their highest political position, are already notable. I see enough local sources to achieve WP:GNG. The succession of executives in adjacent large counties are similarly notable, which make one question why this one is singled out to be under attack. I see others have the same question. Trackinfo (talk) 07:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Ranadive

[edit]

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

An advertorially toned BLP on an unremarkable politician. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO / WP:NPOL; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He appears to be a political operative, or staffer, and there is no presumed notability for any such roles (unlike elected politicians). Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and above Spiderone 14:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated in the article passes WP:NPOL, and the sourcing is not good enough to make him more special than everybody else at the same level of prominence and significance. Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 20 November 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.