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

The result was delete. I must reduce the weight given to views expressed in favour of the sources that, in my judgment, fundamentally misunderstand the tests that we apply to reliable sources and what they prove by way of subject notability. That said and done, the consensus in this discussion was plainly that this article – whilst containing a great number of sources (probably intentionally to excess) – nevertheless fails to establish notability of the IPI. (As always, this is without prejudice to any editor working up a compliant draft – that is substantively different to the form discussed here – and reintroducing to mainspace.) AGK ■ 21:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois Policy Institute[edit]

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

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

Delete Utter corporate spam and entirely promotional, fails WP:SPIP. For the most part, any references I look at fail the criteria for establishing notability being a mishmash of quotations from connected sources or articles that comment on one of their announcements. The article is so bad that WP:TNT applies. There is also a strong smell that the article may have been created by an editor with an undisclosed COI. Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages nor a platform for promotion. [Edit: Also, fails WP:NPOV] HighKing⁺⁺ 14:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are news articles that are in-depth about the subject, are used in the article as citations, are intellectually independent of the subject, and therefore this helps meeting WP:GNG as well as WP:ORG. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." - WP:GNG.
  

The user who has nominated this page for deletion is currently going around following me around and deleting about 5 of my last pages I created, all of which are about organizations. Fortunately, this page is more defendable because it has at least two in-depth sources that are intellectually independent of the subject. I don’t know why he’s picking me to follow around. Perhaps clarification?

- Illinois Times - https://illinoistimes.com/article-7520-conservative-think-tank-to-illinois:-turn-right.html

- State-Journal Register: http://www.sj-r.com/x450317297/Bernard-Schoenburg-Illinois-Policy-Institute-got-half-million-from-Rauner

- Chicago Tribune (this is somewhat in-depth): http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-perspec-zorn-cartoon-rauner-porter-0827-20170825-story.html
Plus, this article has been up for a decade; since 2008. Why now? Thanks, --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response I nominated it because I can't find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The article is also entirely promotional (and unbalanced) and fails WP:SPIP and WP:NPOV.

• This article from the Illinois Times comes closest and starts well enough but on a closer reading it is clear it is not intellectually independent. For example, all of the photographs were provided by IPI and the article prints quotations verbatim without providing any intellectually independent analysis. This is probably the best source I could find but I having read it in detail, I was unconvinced and in any case, two sources are required to establish notability. As per WP:ORGIND, Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. As per WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGIND, If source's independence is of any doubt, it is better to exercise caution and exclude it from determining quality sources for the purposes of establishing notability.
• This SJR reference is about a story where Bruce Rauner donated to the IPI. The IPI is not the primary subject of the article and the coverage is trivial and incidental and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. All of the content about the IPI is directly sourced to the IPI and that fails WP:ORGIND.
• The Chicago Tribune article is also a story mainly featuring Rauner. Like the previous article, the IPI is not the primary subject of the article and the coverage is trivial and incidental and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. All of the content about the IPI is directly sourced to the IPI and fails WP:ORGIND.

In my opinion, it is very notable that the article has not been written with a Neutral Point of View. It is notable that in all three of the references you produced above, most are less-than-complimentary on some of IPI's activities, yet no "controversial" content is contained in the article. Contrast that with the John Simmons (attorney) article you created (which I've also nominated for deletion), most of which is taken up with a "Controversies" section. And seeing as how much you like to bold sentences, let me bold this: Wikipedia isn't here for you to grind personal axes or promote your political point of view. This article also contains over-the-top sourcing with 84 references, most of which are mentions-in-passing and do not support the text in the article. For example, the article states: The Institute has been described as an independent government watchdog, conservative, libertarian, free-market, and nonpartisan ... but fails to disclose that most of those descriptions originate from the IPI itself, yet the article attempts to hoodwink readers into thinking otherwise. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment back: In response to the gentleman, I don't have any "axe to grind". I'm conservative and that's not a crime on Wikipedia, so I like to work on articles that interest me, and those tend to be of conservative minded organizations, people, principles, etc. I don't "promote my political point of view." I take text from a published source, summarize it in my own words then post it to a Wikipedia article I like. The Simmons article has nothing to do with this article. The arguments here should be on the merit of Illinois Policy Institute, not the perception (of one of tens of thousands of active users) of misbehavior on another article of a person who happened to have edited both articles. As for your inkling that the person who created it has a COI, you'll have to scroll back to 2008 (a decade ago) when the article was created and then investigate from there. I wasn't even on Wikipedia that long ago. Best of luck! --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Do not be rude to me. I'm not being rude to you. Your comment about "How much you like to bold sentences" was uncalled for. I bolded it to draw eyes to it, not to yell. Yours was just yelling and mockery. Grow up. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Advocacy. Probably not notable, but even if it were it would have to be started over. DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: notability may be here, but WP:TNT could also apply. I restored a more neutral version of the article. We definitely don't need this article and Liberty Justice Center, so if one of them ends up being kept, the other can be merged if applicable. Marquardtika (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of independent coverage. Of course the article can be improved, but the organisation is notable.Rathfelder (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Please post a link of some independent coverage please. Please read WP:ORGIND to see the type of independent coverage that can be used to establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The exisstance of the Illinois Policy Institute is not in doubt, nor is the fact that it is mentioned in independent sources. There are two interrelated problems: One. the current article is a candidate for WP:TNT due to its NPOV content and tone. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Special note: advertising and promotion. Second, once one strips away the advocay, the coverage does not meet the indepth coverage required for organizations. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage. The substantive articles are not about the Illinois Policy Institute, but about political issues in Illinois. An example is the PR/Newswire article of March 12, 2015 (a deadlink in the article) which in its five paragraphss devotes two to its awards, two to Illinois taxes and one to a brief and canned description of the basic facts about the IPC. --Bejnar (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I do not see significant independent coverage of the subject as the main topic.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I'm actually quite surprised that this article has actually been nominated for deletion. Considering that the IPI has received a lot of coverage from independent and reliable sources, it clearly meets WP:GNG. If the article is written promotionally, we should rewrite the article rather than delete it. Of note, the IPI's relationship with Illinois governor Rauner could be expanded on (and has already given it much coverage in RSs: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8), as well as the organization's relation to the recent Janus Supreme Court case (a relatively significant case): 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are two more articles -- these two are directly focused on the IPI and make clear its significance in Illinois, and the first one explicitly says the organizations has become much more influential since 2007: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nope. We are not debating whether the IPI exists - it obviously does - but whether it is notable enough, based on intellectually independent sources that have published in-depth information on the company. Most of those sources fail to meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. Even assuming they are reliable sources (not even going to debate whether the "NPR Illinois" is a reliable source) - most of those articles simply mention the IPI in passing (failing WP:CORPDEPTH - for example, the US News reference, etc). The Chicago Sun Times reference is a piece on John Tillman. Contrary to 1990'sguy's assertion, that article does not explicitly say that the organization has become more influential since 2007 but rather that the "organization steadily expanded its work and influence" since 2007. Not the same thing at all. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You missed my point, as I never sought to prove that the IPI exists. It meets GNG, as there are many sources that discuss the organization and its influence in Illinois politics. The Sun Times article is about the IPI -- it discusses Tillman's work as president of the IPI. Besides, you missed this in the IPI article: "Well before John Tillman began running the Illinois Policy Institute a decade ago, the nonprofit think tank was calling for major reforms to state government, especially its finances. But few in Springfield — or elsewhere in Illinois — paid attention. That changed when Tillman relaunched the institute in 2007. ......" The sources I have provided clearly show the organization is notable. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete The organization exists but that's not enough to prove notability. Lacks the significant coverage of the organization to meet WP:GNG. 1990sguy sources are about the governor appointing people connected to the IPI to positions on his staff. That seems like passing mentions and WP:NOTINHERITED to me.Sandals1 (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the sources provided by 90sguy show the Illinois Policy Institute is notable (meets GNG), and is in the highest levels of government of the state it is located in.Sdmarathe (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdmarathe: Read WP:NORG about what "in depth coverage" is. For example, the article in the Chicago Sun-Times is not about the IPI, it is about John Tillman, the IPI has only four sentences. Also, the Illinois Policy Institute is not part of the government, it is an NGO, so it cannot be "in the highest levels of government". --Bejnar (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree with you on the Chicago Sun-Times article, and he is referring to all the people in the state government who were hired from IPI. For instance Chicago Business in 2017 said "These guys" are the newcomers in the governor's administration, almost all of them from the Illinois Policy Institute, a strongly opinionated libertarian think tank that has been given control of at least the public aspects of Rauner's administration in recent days and in some ways maybe the governor himself. -Obsidi (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the point. The article is referring to the people who were hired from the IPI and only has a one-line description of the IPI itself. That fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. This is why we say that notability isn't inherited. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in my opinion, that article itself isn't enough evidence of WP:Notability (I have other reasons for my support). But I was just trying to explain the statement that they are "in the highest levels of government of the state it is located in." Is quite accurate, their people work there and they have substantial influence as just about all the RS agree (although I guess there has been a bit of a falling out earlier this year). -Obsidi (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are your other reasons for support? This is about whether the references meet the criteria for establishing notability - any other reasons should be disclosed. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Satisfies WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I think this article in the Illinois Times and this article in the Chicago Sun Times some of the coverage of the organization that meets WP:ORG. This is significant, independent, reliable, secondary coverage in which any similar org should easily qualify. To answer Michael Powerhouse's question of why now after this article has been up for a decade, I think that is fairly clear. They just won the Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME four months ago and while one would think that would make them even more notable, it also made a lot of people angry at them. -Obsidi (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Eh ... as the nom, I think if you take a look at my edit history, first I'm not from the US, second I've no particular interest in US politics, third I've never commented on anything related to the IPI previously, fourth and finally it's quite a scurrilous remark to make and very wide of the mark. On the other hand, when I look at your contributions.... HighKing⁺⁺ 18:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine I'll strike the comment. -Obsidi (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I commented on your first source above - in my opinion at the time I said it was a weak source that probably failed WP:ORGIND but having read it a couple of times since, I agree with you that it meets the criteria in NCORP. The second reference though, from the Chicago Sun Times, is also a weak source but it has no in-depth coverage of the IPI. It talks about how the finances of "Project Six" is linked to the IPI but the mentions of the IPI do not meet the criteria for in-depth coverage. I would also ask you to comment on the lack of NPOV in the current article. It is noteworthy that some of the closest sources that meet the criteria for notability have less-than-complimentary things to say about the IPI and yet the article itself is promotional and glowing with praise. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm convinced that this article meets WP:N based on the sources added here. They demonstrate that the subject is notable and influential enough to have it's own article. I have seen some other political articles kept with worse sourcing (this maybe deemed as OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but still true). GenuineArt (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones in particular do you believe meet the criteria for demonstrating notability. Note that this isn't a !vote counting exercise. Post a link or two below. So far, we've yet to identify (the minimum of) two references that meet the criteria in WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is really badly source-bombed. It appears to fail WP:NCORP - I've only looked at sources which appear to include the organisation in the article title, so I may have missed a few, since a cursory glance of the other sources doesn't suggest anything approaching notability, they're all on other topics or in some cases WP:PRIMARY. I've also looked at the sources above and agree with HighKing. Also fails WP:PROMO, and even if we somehow were to keep this, it almost certainly needs WP:TNT. SportingFlyer talk 12:23, 9 October 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DataRobot[edit]

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

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

Straight up WP:ARTSPAM with little coverage, mostly WP:MILL and press releases. Praxidicae (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. No significant coverage from reliable sources. Doesn't meet WP:CORP, particularly WP:CORPDEPTH. Cited Forbes.com articles are from contributors. — Newslinger talk 04:03, 8 October 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fing[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. One of the article's sources is dead and the other two include a blog and a promotional website. Also, no other sources establishing notability could be found. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Link referenced as broken has been fixed. More references establishing notability are forthcoming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayfish420 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete - The company fails WP:CORPDEPTH and the article is far too promotional and could, in my opinion, be speedily deleted as an advertisement under G11. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NCORP and promotional. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An article describing a company's personnel and products, presumably the same as was deleted by AfD in 2013. The best of the references is a blog case study, but that concerns a product rather than the company. Searches find mentions of the original product but I am not finding the coverage of the company needed to demonstrate WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 11:49, 10 October 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Black (actor)[edit]

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

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

The only attribution is to IMDb. The only claims to fame seem to be 5 minor credits as a child actor and being the brother of a more prolific child actor. CallyMc (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Has played some minor roles in his youth, but I am not seeing substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. IMDb is not a reliable source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It clearly fails notability. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 22:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article has no reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unable to verify this run of the mill actor. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 8 October 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)  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Did Something Bad[edit]

I Did Something Bad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Content based on the album review. It hasn't entered any official chart. Non-notable per WP:NSONGS. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Article as is isn't great with sources, but I was able to find independent coverage about this song: [1] [2] [3] [4]. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All that has to be said. Realistically, it DID chart in two nations, though the article should definitely be expanded upon. The article as is is not up to standards. Aleccat 00:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't consider Bubbling Under Hot 100 and the NZ version of Bubbling Under as official charts. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm willing to improve this article. — MUST BE Love on the Brain. 00:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - As the article states, she’s going to perform the song at the American Music Awards next week. If the song doesn’t meet the notability now, it certainly will by the end of this AFD, with a live performance of that caliber. Sergecross73 msg me 03:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in addition to the Vox and Billboard links FenixFeather provided (I don't know what to say about "Elite Daily" though Time just has flimsy detail), there's a citation from Elle exclusively focusing on this track thoroughly as well as a detailed piece from "The Pop Song Professor" (though I'm not sure how legit "The Pop Song Professor" is). When these aren't just something taken from album reviews, we have sufficient independent coverage from reputable publications too meet WP:NSONGS, which requires of being significantly covered in multiple credible sources that aren't album reviews or things closely affiliated with artist (i.e. one's own commentary on their work or something from their songwriters, label, producers, etc. as that would be just self-promotion). Charts (or lack thereof) are irrelevant. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:52, 8 October 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) KCVelaga (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasmas asustados[edit]

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

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

No evidence of notability Blitzcream (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A fairly weak keep. It gets listed in an awful lot of filmographies in film books, especially in Spanish language. Its use of female impersonation in comedy is briefly discussed in this book[5], and its negative portrayal of Mexicans is briefly discussed in this book. SpinningSpark 23:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it does have reliable sources book coverage as shown above which can be used to flesh out the minimalist stub, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:05, 6 October 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Weinstein (ice hockey)[edit]

Steven Weinstein (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Fails both the GNG and NHOCKEY. Has played 9 games in the AHL which is not close to showing notability. Coverage is routine sports reporting. Playing in the Maccabiah Games does not show automatic notability.Sandals1 (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 100 professional games used to qualify for notability, but the NHOCKEY guidelines have since changed. Player clearly does not meet them now. Teemu08 (talk) 17:05, 3 October 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cissy Jones[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR (at least with respect to WP:V). I can find only interviews and passing mentions. This article is essentially an IMDb list. wumbolo ^^^ 20:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Emeritus. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon F. Child[edit]

Sheldon F. Child (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to quotations from the subject, fleeting passing mentions, quotations and name checks. The article is reliant on primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep General Authority Seventies are significant leaders in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A search of the books link alone will show dozens of quotes from him, showing he is widely looked to by many writers as an authority on religious subjects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Subjects are not given a free pass for an article based upon their position in a religious organization; notability requires significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, which does not appear to be available for this subject. Quotations from a subject do not establish notability; they are primary sources in the most literal sense of the term, directly from the subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Emeritus. Proposals to exempt LDS leaders from WP:GNG have failed to achieve consensus support in 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018. Article relies on sources that are not independent under WP:IIS (Ensign, Liahona, Meridian, Church News) and do not count toward establishing notability. Search does not find WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. There are brief quotes from the subject in independent RS about how LDS members would not be proselytizing at the SLC Olympics, and quotes from his presentation in routine coverage of a meeting celebrating the church's 1978 decision to stop excluding members based on skin color. But those aren't significant coverage of this subject. So the subject does not seem to pass WP:GNG. A sensible alternative to deletion is to redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Emeritus, where information on the subject already exists. Open to alternatives if in-depth coverage emerges. Bakazaka (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article helps to clutter our encyclopedic veins. Far from significant personality according to WP standards. No independent sources to justify its entry in WP. Den... (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per User:Bakazaka. I agree that he may not meet WP standards but still, he is likely to be searched for from time to time. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:17, 10 October 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. WP:SNOW Keep applies. Overwhelming Keep consensus. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Gavin[edit]

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

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

I am the subject of this page and wish to have it deleted based on the grounds that I am a non-notable, private person who does not meet the standard of Wikipedia's Notability policy. Awsxde (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As a named distinguished professor he passes WP:PROF, as the author of books with many published reviews (which I just added to the article) he passes WP:AUTHOR, and also as a book author he is not a private-enough person for WP:NPF to allow for removing the whole article. (It could still be used to remove personal information not connected to his claims for notability but I don't see that in our article.) —David Eppstein (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eppstein and all common sense. I have posted nom a welcome message and a TWA invitation. Sam Sailor 18:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eppstein. He passes the enumerated criteria for notability.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, thanks to David Eppstein, for listing all the book reviews in the article showing that Gavin clearly meets WP:NAUTHOR. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (more like a snow keep) Meets WP:NPF so keep JC7V-constructive zone 02:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is nothing saying we should have articles on all named chair holders even if they are presumed notable. I think we should defer to the desires for privacy of living people unless they are clearly and without question notable, which Gavin is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your statement for several reasons. First, by publishing books he is no longer a "non-public" or "low profile" individual. Second, I think he is "clearly and without question notable." Papaursa (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He easily meets both WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR. Papaursa (talk) 01:15, 8 October 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)  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Henley (Birmingham mayor)[edit]

Robert Henley (Birmingham mayor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication that this individual meets WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. One of the two sources is another wiki. Marquardtika (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment are we sure there's not a couple other sources that would get him past WP:GNG? Birmingham's large enough that I would expect he would be covered somewhere. SportingFlyer talk 02:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Likely Keep The first mayor of Birmingham, Alabama. There are several possible sources at http://www.bhamwiki.com/w/Robert_Henley about the subject's life. Confederate Veteran, Volume 16 says that the subject was a major (presumably in the confederate army). Some sources say he was the editor of the Birmingham Sun. --Enos733 (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if somebody can actually show some solid sources before closure, delete otherwise. Birmingham is certainly a large enough city that a substantive and properly sourced article about a mayor would be deemed to pass WP:NPOL #2, but the role is not so "inherently" notable that we would need to keep a short, badly sourced stub which only just barely goes any further than stating that he existed. And while it is true that it's entirely possible to write a bad, seemingly deletable article about a person who actually passes our notability criteria, the saving play in a case like that is not simply presuming that better sources probably exist, but showing hard proof that better sources do exist (and I can't be the angel of salvation here, as I only have access to Canadian sourcing in his era, not the American kind where he might actually have some coverage.) So this needs to go if it doesn't see improvement, and then can certainly be recreated again in the future if somebody actually puts in the effort to write and source something considerably better than this — but as it stands, nothing about him is so "inherently" notable that it would be necessary to keep it in this form. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I added a couple sources from newspapers.com; Bearcat, does that look good to you? The 1910 article has a few more details that can be used if someone wants to clean up the page a bit more. I did find sources calling him a major. Given governor Lindsey's character, I supposed Henley may have been a Confederate officer, but that is far from certain. He was 18 when the Civil War broke out, 22 when it ended, pretty young to be a major (of course, not too young by any means in a war noted in its use of child soldiers). He may have been a major in another body, such as a state or local militia. He may have also received the honorific for some other reason (I don't know about major, but the title captain was given to boat pilots and other military-derived titles to people in fraternal organizations). Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:22, 5 October 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 seems to indicate that the Heymann standard comes into effect here. (non-admin closure)  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Adler[edit]

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

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

No indication that this individual meets WP:NPOL, or more broadly, WP:GNG. It kind of reads like an obituary, but it's not clear where the encyclopedic value is. Marquardtika (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep a Newspapers.com search brought up over 2,000 mentions in New York State so there's a possible WP:NEXIST, but mayors don't necessarily pass WP:NPOL without significant coverage. I don't have access to the search results - that being said, the article is currently only sourced to genealogy websites, which don't count toward notability. SportingFlyer talk 02:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and improve. Coverage of his political role moving Rochester (a major city in his era) to a city manager system exists in books and newspapers. Also scholarly coverage, such as: "Rochester's city manager campaign,"Story, Stephen B., National municipal review, ISSN:0190-3799, 04/1926, Volume: 15 Issue: 4 Page: 208-211. Clearly a significant Progressive Era civic figure in Rochester. Scion of Adler Rochester clothes, a men's ready-made company. Rochester was a center of the ready made clothing industry c. 1900. Article just needs expansion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @E.M.Gregory: Would you mind terribly finding a couple of non-routine feature newspaper articles on him and posting them here? I know we've had our disagreements at AfD, but my delete vote was based entirely on the current sourcing of the article and a difficulty of finding good sources quickly. I'm prepared to change to keep and would improve the article a little bit if a couple good feature articles/WP:SIGCOV can be found. SportingFlyer talk 11:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Anybody know whether/where to find archives of the Democrat and Chronicle, Rochester Times-Union, and whatever other papers covered Rochester in the 20's? I'm sure they ran such articles. Meanwhile, I expanded and sourced his role in moving Rochester to a city manager system to a 1961 history of Rochester (reprinted in 1999,) and 1926 articles in the National Municipal Review, and the American Political Science Review. Partisan academic journals are nothing new, both of these were stridently "progressive" journals in the 1920s, extremely pro-city manager (all eras have hot button issues that sound arcane a century later.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @E.M.Gregory: I've changed to a keep now the article has been expanded. Thanks! SportingFlyer talk 23:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Important figure in the history of Rochester, plus Rochester is an important city in New York. There are enough sources in the archives to pass GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sufficient RS coverage of a mayor of a large city (population 300,000+ in 1930). --Enos733 (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This could certainly use some further improvement, but there is already enough substance and enough reliable sourcing here to pass WP:NPOL #2. Rochester is a major enough city that articles about its mayors should be permissible and expected; the cutoff for mayors is nowhere near as restrictive as the cutoff for city councillors is. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 3 October 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List Of The Most Followed Nigerian Stars On Instagram[edit]

List Of The Most Followed Nigerian Stars On Instagram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

listicle, fancruft, entirely supported by OR. Disambiguating "most followed" accounts by nationality seems a bit silly and potentially a BLP issue similar to categorizing people by nationality/race/ethnicity/religion. Praxidicae (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, thus failing WP:NOTDIR criterion #6. SpinningSpark 22:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete woof. Not a remotely useful list to have in an encyclopedia. WP:LISTCRUFT applies here. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NOTSTATS an listcruft, this article has been duplicated here Top Most Followed Nigerians On Instagram I will be nominating it for speedy deletion as already existing. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unnecessary list. Kirbanzo (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article is a Laundry List AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Aoba47 (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete. Article makes a mockery of everything Wikipedia stands for. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete --Nutty ^Talk! 18:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No doubts about its uselessness and lack of notability. Den... (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-liked Facebook pages[edit]

List of most-liked Facebook pages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is basically an unfinished listicle that will be ever-changing and is essentially copied from the sources. Also WP:LISTN. Praxidicae (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Only created this afternoon so needs time for creator to add more content. Matt14451 (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify should not be used for content that is not and will not ever be encyclopedic, as is the case here. Praxidicae (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If people don't think this comes under WP:NOT, in particular WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA and WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:NOTDIRECTORY then I despair. Draftifying is pointless; it won't change the basic nature of this page. SpinningSpark 19:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you forgot one! WP:NOR!Praxidicae (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As it's sourced, I presumed it wasn't OR, but if you say so. SpinningSpark 19:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not encyclopedic, will bring Facebook fancruft and Gossip driven confrontation with WP:NOTNP --Adamstraw99 (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Dynamic nature of list (if it existed) would make it unmanageable. Plus we aren't a directory of social media accounts, not encyclopedic one bit. Ajf773 (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Facebook is one of the most important social networks. Figures are available directly from the them and not disputable. Many sites compile similar lists of the most popular facebook pages; surely we could use them as sources. The argument about frequent updates makes little sense, when precision of the follower count is by the million: By the same token, we maintain List of most-viewed YouTube videos, List of most-followed Instagram accounts, List of most-subscribed YouTube channels, List of most-retweeted tweets, List of most-followed Twitter accounts, List of most streamed artists on Spotify, List of most streamed songs on Spotify, List of most-viewed Vevo videos, List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours, List of most-viewed online trailers in the first 24 hours, List of most-liked YouTube videos, List of most-disliked YouTube videos which is informative or trivial depending on your WP:POV.-Akhiljaxxn (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ajf773 (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - after reading above reasoning and finding this, I Am changing my vote to weak keep at best . --Adamstraw99 (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't that an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument? SpinningSpark 00:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but i didn't know twitter follower list was worthy enough to be included in Wikipedia, If twitter allowed why not FB? perhaps many people do search these most followers kind of things so maybe kept.. Adamstraw99 (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imho, List of most-followed Twitter accounts is not "worthy enough to be included". If it came up at AfD, I would vote for deletion of that one as well. SpinningSpark 16:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In my opinion, we need to keep this article since the list of most subscribed youtube channels and most followed Instagram accounts are present. Facebook doesn't have much change when considering from user point of view.Adithyak1997 (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Akhiljaxxn. If there can be articles for twitter, Instagram , YouTube followers and subscribers, then why not for the largest social media site. Knightrises10 (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are all literally "other stuff" arguments. Perhaps we should delete those, too. Wikipedia isn't for listicles and the dynamic nature of these make it relatively unencyclopedic as well as subject to WP:OR. In particular, this article isn't even a list! Praxidicae (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: "Figures are available directly from the them and not disputable." They certainly are disputable, the article itself acknowledges that there plenty of ways to artificially inflate these numbers. I see this as WP:OR and WP:NOT. In addition, WP:LISTN. Waggie (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That's disputing the legitimacy of the figures, not that the figures themselves are verifiable. Iffy★Chat -- 12:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the phenomenom of most liked facebook pages has been discussed by reliable sources. Iffy★Chat -- 12:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article is also well sourced. This topic has received coverage in news sources. So I don't think it is necessary to delete this. Knightrises10 talk 12:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article is sourced and there is a precedent of having such articles, as shown above. This could be easily discussed on the talk_page or by RfC. Störm (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I appreciate the dynamic keep argument, but I am not yet convinced that WP should spend energies on this type of material (as argued above). Perhaps the creators should justify their work better. In addition, I see little difference between this article and this other one. Yet, both are nominated for deletion, but only one is being snow-deleted. Am I missing something? Den... (talk) 22:38, 9 October 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. Given evidence that there is not a copyvio, and agreement that notability has been met, the other issues wouldn't impinge on this article's existence and thus is a Keep. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Schaal[edit]

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

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

Copyright violation,Delete immediately it contains text copied verbatim from https://stefan-schaal.net Janrpeters (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. AfD is the wrong venue for copyright violations. But more importantly, the article has been extensively edited by Sschaal1 and Sschaal2, now blocked for sockpuppetry. If there has been any copying, I think we can safely infer that the owner of the copyrighted material has, by editing the material into the article here, granted permission for it to be used here. The attempts to delete the article began at more or less the same time as Sschaal was blocked from editing the article and an IP editor added a reference to Der Spiegel alleging financial improprieties on the part of Schaal; that timing seems unlikely to be a coincidence. If the subject of the article was happy to have a self-edited puff piece about him here, he has no basis for complaint when the article becomes balanced with properly sourced but negative information. Given the pattern of edits, it may be worth contacting Jan Peters offline to verify that the edits made here under his name are really his. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Schaal meets WP:PROF. AfD is not for clean-up. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I talked to an administrator who is an expert in copyright. She and I agree that the website is most likely a mirror of the article, meaning no infringement.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears the web site was created in July 2018 (at least judging from its DNS registration; its newness is also evidenced by the fact that archive.org has no record of it). The oldest (deleted) versions of the article here, created by...hmm...Janrpeters...what a coincidence...are from 2012, and have very similar text in them. So it does appear that the copying went the other way, as you say. The article history does show some copying from elsewhere, but it was deleted and those revisions were suppressed. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. On the evidence presented, not copyvio. And clearly notable. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Despite the apparent COI, there's no question he's notable for both WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Papaursa (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If it were just a case of highly cited publications, I might allow WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE in this case (although we don't at this point have a request that's clearly from the subject). But with the IEEE Fellow, he passes multiple WP:PROF criteria, and the (positive) Washington Post and (negative) Spiegel coverage also make a strong case for GNG. I think that's too much to ignore. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 8 October 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three Six Zero[edit]

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

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

Paid advertorial for a non-notable company. There's a carpet-bomb of references, but after I examined every one, all I found was everyday coverage of routine business announcements and/or passing mentions in industry publications. Not the in-depth coverage required of WP:NCORP. In particular, the industry-only coverage fails WP:AUD. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I opened up six of the refs at random, the return was 2 x 404, 1 x press release, 3 x no mention. The article reads as promotional and I concur with the nom. Szzuk (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Its a target for spam. Fails WP:ORGIND. scope_creep (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No evidence of notability. Fails WP:CORP  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Snow. So patently useless... Den... (talk) 22:13, 9 October 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. The gist of the discussion is the tension between our propensity to keep secondary schools because we always do that (i.e. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES) and the desire to hold private schools to the higher standard of WP:NCORP. There is some thought here that the distinction between public and private schools may represent an ethnocentric view of things which isn't valid in Asia. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Language & Business Centre[edit]

International Language & Business Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Previously kept because it exists, this company providing educational services does not meet the requires of WP:NCORP. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree that corporations that own schools are not subject to the general consensus that schools are notable and must meet NCORP. This doesn't. John from Idegon (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An independent school organisation that provides mainstream education at all levels including GCE O-level and university entrance as stated on its its website. Thus it is a high school. --Phyo WP (message) 04:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per The Myanmar Times press. That strong one!! clearly seen notable. EpcMyanmar (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • NCORP requires multiple reliable totally independent secondary sources that discuss the company in detail, at least one of which must be either a widely circulated publication such as a book or national level magazine or from a geographically separate location. You've shown one source that discusses one event from a local source. How does that meet NCORP, EpcMyanmar? John from Idegon (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Research does not support enough third party coverage, most search results are directories/lists or press releases. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: ILBC school is the name of private high school with many campus in major cities with significant coverage in news. This article typically meets secondary school notability. It is not the name of parent company so we should not consider according to WP:NCORP. [6] [7] [8] [9] The English language sources indicate notability as a secondary school, not as a company that owns schools. However, I am concerned about possible copyright problem. --Phyo WP (message) 04:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, no. Whereas the individual schools might be notable, the company that owns them does not garner notability from that (see WP:INHERIT). A manufacturer does not become notable simply for making notable products. A real estate investment company does not become notable for owning notable properties. And references about schools that this company owns do not speak to the notability of the company. Someone can and should write articles about the individual schools and those topics would likely be notable. The company that owns them, no. John from Idegon (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Both primary (website [10], woven badge in school uniform [11] [12] and school buildings [13]) and secondary sources [14] [15] [16] [17] clearly indicated that ILBC is the name of school with many campus. It is very clear that ILBC is not the name of its parent company. This article is about a high school with many campus. --Phyo WP (message) 09:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that it is not very relevant whether it a multi-campus school or a regional educational supplier. Either way I would have nominated it for deletion because WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES makes it clear that schools are not notable unless they either are shown to be a place meeting WP:NGEO or there is reasonable evidence to meet WP:ORGCRITE, which this organisation does not. I think there is a case to be made that state schools and accredited higher education institutions have a certain presumption of notability, this is neither and thus doesn't. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Schools are a rather unique topic and that leads to confusing notability guidelines. What makes individual schools notable is usually the organization that occupies the unique building in the unique community it is in. Hence, its notability is tied indellably to the community as a highly important social organization. Here on Wikipedia, if a school moves to a different location in the same general area, we simply address that in the article copy, as the local institution is what is notable, not the building. For public school districts, they are assumed notable because they occupy a specific place on the map, and are highly likely to have extensive media coverage due to the fact they levy taxes. The closest analogy to a private corporation that owns schools is the public school district, but they are neither constrained to a set physical boundry nor do they levy taxes. The notability assumptions about school districts simply do not apply to corporations that own schools. Again, I want to emphasize that in no way am I saying that each individual school is not notable. Indeed I'd go so far as to say they likely are, and at least one of the secondary sources you proffered would be nearly sufficient to show one of the individual schools meets the notability requirements for schools (the one with the traffic issues). John from Idegon (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. the status of the school is not apparent in the current article, but checking its website it offers education to the secondary level, with established international standards,. The consensus has been disputed, but in practice we have almost always kept such schools. The basic rationale , is that it is easier to do this than to debate each one. There might be a point even in debating each one, if it gave rational results, but experience has shown we don't do much better than chance, because the result depends not on the merits or the references, but on who happens to appear at the discussion. As these articles are harmless, we'd do better to simply keep them and deal with the real problems . It's time we thought about what we do here, and realize that the method of consensus discussions at afd cannot deal adequately with this sort of situation. It can deal with getting rid of junk, and keeping articles objected to on the grounds of prejudice; it can deal with trying to work with the nuances of BLP and NCORP in instances important enough to get wide participation. But where there are a small number of determined people on each side, it's just a matter of chance what turns out to be the ratio. DGG ( talk ) 08:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per DGG. A second look at the sources, cited and not, shows a clear picture of this Centre's notability. Moving behind the scenes and under more visible events, this entity should not be ignored here. Den... (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sufficient coverage in independent sources to meet WP:GNG. In Asia it is normal for companies to own groups of schools and these are broadly equivalent of US school districts that are considered notable and with 26 schools this is a big group. Just Chilling (talk) 20:02, 10 October 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Thompson (Mormon)[edit]

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

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to short passing mentions and name checks. The primary sources in the article and found in searches do not serve to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The top leaders of the Relief Society of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are clearly default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – There is no default notability for Relief Society leaders whatsoever, and no guideline page states such. Sorry, but the personal, made-up notability standards stated above are not aligned with actual notability on Wikipedia at all. Subjects are not given a free pass for an article based upon their position in an organization; notability requires significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, which does not appear to be available for this subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough notability or third party coverage. The small amount of relevant info on this page is included in List_of_General_Presidencies_of_the_Relief_Society Earnsthearthrob (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I feel that the topic is not that notable and has very little source to be autentic and the relevant portion is covered in List_of_General_Presidencies_of_the_Relief_SocietyVinodbasker (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)*[reply]
• Delete. Already mentioned in its proper place, it has no need for an individual entry. It is not only wrong to hold that "The top leaders of the Relief Society of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are clearly default notable." This statement reads like blalant ideology push. No. There is nothing here that indicates notability according to WP standards. Den... (talk) 22:23, 9 October 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Docimo[edit]

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

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

Non-notable wrestler. Clearly a vanity piece. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A wrestler who worked only in no notable independent promotions. No notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No real indication of notability, most likely created by someone with close relation to subject. Greyjoy ^talk 12:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete No significant coverage of a wrestler who never made it to the big name promotions.Sandals1 (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Whilst wrestling for a "big name promotion", clearly make notablity easier, it's not a prerequisit for an article on the wrestler. There are many bios, including GAs that have never worked for a "Big promotion", and there are wrestlers that work for the WWE, that do not meet notability criteria. This one should be deleted simply due to it's lack of coverage Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I am not seeing substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. Article is very promotional and is likely written by a CoI editor whose name I see is "Darkness138", the same as the wrestler's ring name. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nothing demonstrating even border-line notability - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with nominator. It is a vanity piece. No significant sources to merit this entry. Den... (talk) 22:25, 9 October 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 Not notable, move to sandbox.. There is a consensus here that the subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. There is no objection to moving the page to Govvy’s sandbox so I will move it there. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reo Griffiths[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. I don't mind it being moved into my sandbox as I do work on Tottenham related footballers there. Govvy (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Govvy (talk) I am willing to accept it being moved to your sandbox as a compromise. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Either Delete or Move as per Govvy's request. It's clear at this point that the page doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. 21.colinthompson (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftspace seems reasonable, as he is signed for a fully professional team, so may become notable enough in the not too distant future. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:18, 6 October 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:SNOW came early this year. SoWhy 08:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Moore Jr[edit]

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

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

Article was written clearly as an Autobiography. The only claim of being notable is for being a photographer and filmmaker for a Koss Corporation. This individual does not meet WP:GNG. The references are mostly passing mentions about where he has performed. There are a few references that are more than that but I wouldn't say that is enough for the individual to meet the notable guidelines. It looks more like this individual is trying to become famous by have a Wikipedia article, instead of being famous enough to have a Wikipedia article.--VViking_TalkEdits 14:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - None of these sources convinces me that this passes WP:NBIO. shoy (reactions) 14:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete Sources are of notable importance more specifically ones from new outlets such as OnMilwaukee, NBC, Shepherd Express, 88.9WMSE, 102.1FM, Light The Hoan as well as the podcasts. Individual is not Beyonce but this passes and many of the sources are of notable importance to notable events. (reactions) 11:20, 2 October 2018

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonBillings (talk • contribs) .— JasonBillings (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Martinmoorejr (talk • contribs). Knightrises10 (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note This user is a possible sock of the creator of this article. Knightrises10 (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since the sources are not reliable. Knightrises10 (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete Knightrises10 Sources are reliable from credible news outlets. I have no COI or affiliation with article individual. 11:35, 2 October 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonBillings (talk • contribs) — JasonBillings (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Martinmoorejr (talk • contribs).

Duplicate !vote struck. Please only make one bolded comment. shoy (reactions) 17:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Strip out the blogs and puffery, and there's nothing there; no criticism, no commentary, and those few sources that do qualify as reliable sources in general are just passing mentions. There are sources to demonstrate that he exists; there's nothing as it stands to indicate that he's significant in Wikipedia's terms. ‑ Iridescent 16:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Do not find relevance for the topic as perWP:GNG and the source do not seem to be credibleVinodbasker (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)*[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Obvious self promotion. Looks like the author has since been blocked for sock puppetry. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Let's put aside the charge of self-promotion for a moment. There's little or no evidence of notability. (But for anyone interested in the self promotion, Sockpuppet_investigations/Martinmoorejr links Martinmoorejr and JasonBillings.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:A7. This is looking like it's going to be a WP:SNOW close for delete so maybe it makes no difference now. Since JasonBillings has been confirmed to be a WP:SOCK of the article's creator and JasonBillings made this edit, this should probably be deleted asap per A7. WP:AUTO or WP:COI doesn't matter at all because of the socking and removal of the template. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete It should have went up to WP:G5 for deletion, as its confirmed sock(s). The revision deletion is too damaged to keep it. scope_creep (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not what G5 means. The G5 deletion criterion means we can (not "must") delete pages which a banned user created after their ban; it definitely does not mean we engage in damnatio memoriae and wipe that user's contributions from before they were blocked. ‑ Iridescent 19:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• When your right, your right. I must have been drunk last night. It is G11 per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Martinmoorejr. scope_creep (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable sock spam. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:41, 7 October 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. While the argument to keep has basis in policy, it has insufficient support. I would be happy to refund this to the userspace of anyone who wishes to develop this towards a merger. Vanamonde (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Randhir Verma Under-19 cricket Championship[edit]

Randhir Verma Under-19 cricket Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non-notable, local youth-level tournament. Does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:NCRIC Spike 'em (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORTS, the under 19 cricket tournament held throughout the State and recognised by the Board of Control for Cricket in India, has enough significant coverage in Mainstream Media houses like Telegraph[18]Dainik Jagran [19] [20][21] Hindustan (newspaper)[22] The regional languages are Hindi, Bhojpuri and Maithili language so most of the SIGCOV sources are in Hindi. The sources talk in detail about the structure of the tournament, schedules, players, officials and statistics related coverage for each and every match.--DBigXrayᗙ 13:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails to meet any of the requirements for notability detailed in WP:CRIN. Narky Blert (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRIN as of now does not cover U19 cricket. It is being discussed in talkpage. U19 cricket is covered in Indian media, like Baseball is covered in US Category:Youth_baseball. Popularity of a sport may vary among different countries. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, open a discussion at WP:CRIN, make a persuasive case, win the argument, and get the guideline changed.

Until that happens, this article fails NCRIN. End of. Narky Blert (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We don't want or need article for every state level U-19 cricket tournament. Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs are judged by existing policies such as WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORTS whether we want them or not is immaterial.--DBigXrayᗙ 13:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well we don't want them because they're not notable as per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. That should have been really obvious from my previous comment. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the community agreed consensus is that domestic under-19 tournaments are non-notable, unless such matches have first-class/List A/T20 status conferred on them; these do not. StickyWicket (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. Local/regional U19 tournaments are just that and have been deemed to be non-notable in the past. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment in addition to my keep vote above, Just noting that Deletion is not recommended specially when WP:ATD exists such as merging to the Organising body Bihar Cricket Association per WP:PRESERVE --DBigXrayᗙ 11:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• And a discussion related to WP:CRIN on allowing such articles is happening on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#Extend_WP:CRIN_to_include_competitions where the consensus is to allow the popular events as WP:NSPORTS, WP:GNG and WP:ORG --DBigXrayᗙ 11:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. An open discussion is not WP:POLICY, and is no reason to keep an article which fails to pass any notability guideline. Narky Blert (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Bihar Cricket Association per WP:ATD. The article fails WP:CRIN at present, but there's no reason at least some of the content can be merged to the article on the administrator. TeraTIX 04:50, 12 October 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Carr (actor)[edit]

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

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

The notability of this article is being tested. Let the community decide if this person is worthy of his own article. TheEditster (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A Google Search of the article's subject TheEditster (talk) 11:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR, non-notable. JMHamo (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a mirror of IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 6 October 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giancarlo Erra[edit]

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

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

I could not find any evidence that this musician is notable apart from the band, Nosound. A redirect to the band was reverted with the comment "A new major project under his own name, unrelated with the band, is to be announced in a few weeks." The article has a long history of COI editing and promotional contributions, and I'd like input from the community as to whether this satisfies WP:NMUSICIAN. Bradv 15:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing this page to bring it more in line with wikipedia standards. I am not a regular contributor, but I did setup a lot of the Nosound discography and album pages. I am familiar with Giancarlo's work, but need time to read and understand why the page is up for deletion and what the requirements are to make it more valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougkost (talk • contribs) 18:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It looks like the same spa created this article, the band and a load of discography articles which are all inappropriately sourced. For example Sol29, Lightdark, A Sense of Loss. I don't think any of it is notable but haven't looked that deeply. Szzuk (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This article is about an Italian national, with a few of the relevant URLs in the article ending in the top-level domain: '.it'. There may be sources out there that our search engines have not indexed. Someone good at researching on Italian subjects would be appreciated here.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:05, 9 October 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 Civic agriculture. (non-admin closure) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lyson Center for Civic Agriculture and Food Systems[edit]

Lyson Center for Civic Agriculture and Food Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability. I restored maintenance tags after they were removed but subsequent searches did not yield any reliable sources that might have demonstrated notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is a charity with a handful of staff, it has worthy aims but the refs in the article are 1 primary and 2 obituaries about Mr Lyson (presumably the founder), my google searches not supporting notability. Szzuk (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as there is a viable article noted below. Szzuk (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest adding a brief mention at civic agriculture and redirecting there. It does not seem notable enough for a standalone article. Lyson himself, on the other hand, may be notable enough for an article - his work is reasonably well cited and may meet WP:PROF. SpinningSpark 12:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable and WP:NOTSPAM. wumbolo ^^^ 14:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. As per Spinningspark After looking at the sources and arguments from both sides, I think that most of the data in this entry should stay in WP, but perhaps in another article. In other words, the meager independent sources cannot yet justify an individual article. Den... (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective Merge to Civic agriculture. Cursory source searches are not providing much in terms of usable sources. Merging will improve the suggested merge target article (WP:ATD-M). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 10 October 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. As the article (still) contains no sources and is contested, WP:V mandates its deletion. The entire content was "Ramlah is the name of a settlement in Fujairah." The coordinates given were 25°21′42″N 56°2′37″E. Sandstein 21:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ramlah, Fujairah[edit]

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

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

Unsourced. Fails WP:V and WP:GEOLAND. Pin points to location near Al Manama, local mosque is named in Arabic 'Suburb of Hanieh'. So not Ramlah. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Inaccurate, unsourced three-word "article". Softlavender (talk) 08:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced —AE (talk • contributions) 08:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there appears to be a settlement where the Ramlah point exists on OpenStreetMap at 25.36174°N, 56.04538°E. The Fujairah census is completely unhelpful as it is either Fujairah city, Dibba city, or surroundings. SportingFlyer talk 03:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GEOLAND as it's on the official population map of Fujairah here as الرمله: [23] SportingFlyer talk 06:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per SportingFlyer. Satisfies GEOLAND. James500 (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would this pass new page review? It would not. It's not sourced, it's not notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact it's a populated place on an official government map leads me to believe that WP:NEXIST is likely satisfied, even though I'm having a difficult time coming up with English sources. SportingFlyer talk 21:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As I have argued before, this is a type of article that WP needs to stay relevant to its increasingly broad readership. Many of the none English-language sources are reliable and independent. In sum, they show this settlement's notability. Den... (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What non-English sources? Name one. This is a mad stub, unsourced and of no value. In fact, it's just plain misleading. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's a stretch to say this crossroads is Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GEOLAND, which says, If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it. That seems to fit.

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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Fante[edit]

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

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

This article has no references, may fail WP:GNG and WP:WHO. Sheldybett (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article has not reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 8 October 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mervyn B. Arnold[edit]

Mervyn B. Arnold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to quotations from the subject, passing mentions and name checks. The article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:ANYBIO. AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:28, 8 October 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gözde Dal[edit]

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

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

Does not fulfill criteria of WP:SPORTBASIC as a notable sportsperson. The only quoted references are statistics aggregators which are not sufficient to lend notability. An online search also shows that person is only covered in routine game reports and team listings. —Madrenergic^talk 08:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT. Sandals1 (talk) 16:07, 3 October 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 Mick Softley. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 14:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Capital (album)[edit]

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

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

No indication of notability and no sources. A quick search does not bring up any WP:RS. Lopifalko (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with article on Mick Softley. This article does not say anything other than that this was an album released by Mick Softley in 1976, and the track listing, and I am not sure that this really justifies a standalone article. Vorbee (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Mick Softley. No significant coverage found. I don't see anything to be merged here. I think any searches for this could be covered by an entry in the Capital disambiguation page, pointing to the Mick Softley article. We could redirect this, although I'm not keen on keeping convoluted disambiguated titles as redirects as they seem unlikely search terms. --Michig (talk) 08:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mick Softley. Standalone article was the only option but coverage is not that significant for it. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:19, 3 October 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Megugorac[edit]

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

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

Article is cited to one source which is of unclear reliability. Cannot find significant RS coverage. Catrìona (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Can't find RS coverage" Have you looked at Hot Rod or Car Craft or Street Rodder or Rod & Custom? Magoo has only been around 50yr in the business. Honestly, I really hate this ignorant crap, just delete anything you can't immediately find online. Next you'll say he's not notable because there's no website dedicated to his life. Did you bother to look at any of the external links, either? I suppose the HRM website doesn't qualify as RS, either, huh? And the fact you never heard of Goodguys means they can't be trusted, even tho they've only been hosting shows for more then 20yr... Sheesh. And, of course, somebody who built an AMBR-winning car & got national magazine coverage for his whole career can't possibly be notable, just bacause you never heard of him, right? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:09, 12:14 & 13:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add some of those sources? 50 year coverage in Hot Rod is hard to deal with these days (one of several topics) because it doesn't make a visible web footprint. If you've still got the paper trail, then you're in a much better place to fix this than most other editors will be. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Could you add some of those sources?" I don't have access to HRM or CC going back that far, or I'd have used them as sources & we wouldn't be discussing it. Not even my local library goes back really far... Even the HR website was no help (& I'm not helped, either, by an old PC that can't even read the page anymore, which is why I used it as an EL & not a cite...) If you've got a bigger-city library, you might be able to use their search function to find issues featuring Magoo, then request them for research. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Could use more coverage, especially on his work, but the obits already in the ELs would seem to satify notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep over 700 results from google search -->Typ932 ^T·C 13:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's only two sources referenced in the article, and having only looked at the sources in the article, but I can't verify the reliability of the good-guys obituary, and none of the external links are very helpful. A web search brought up mentions, but I couldn't find any other sources. His newspaper obituary on Legacy.com is run of the mill. As it stands, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 00:35, 28 September 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 21:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kilominx[edit]

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

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

Puzzle which has not received significant coverage from multiple reliable independent secondary sources Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. With a few secondary references added, this article will be as valid as any other. I've added two more references this morning from the Twisty Puzzles Museum; if you find more please feel free to add them. Skewb? (talk) 06:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Skewb? . WizardKing 00:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Coverage is very bad. twistypuzzles website also has a shop selling similar products, so it's a clear COI. ruwix.com is a wiki, so a self-publisher site it's not reliable. And then there's what effectively looks like someone's personal Web 1.0 page from the 90s. No, those sources don't cut it by any stretch. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The twistypuzzles.com shop is operated separately from the museum. Saying it's not a reliable source because it also includes a shop is like saying a music group's official website is not a reliable source for its article, just because it has a merch store. With ruwix.com I admit I have to agree. Jaap's is a perfectly fine source if you ignore the poor quality of the page. Skewb? (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Sources in the article aren't reliable. wumbolo ^^^ 14:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. I can't find any WP:RS. Lots of search results, but they're all vendors who sell these things, blogs or other WP:UGC, or niche sources which fail WP:AUD. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the topic meets NPROF, although the view is certainly not unanimous. This transcends the ONEEVENT concerns held by several. The Washington Post opinion piece is just that, and not canvassing, and no weight regarding keeping or deleting was given to it. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Strumia[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)).

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

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

No notability. The article consist solely of description of the recent controversy, which is in itself minor and probably not worth keeping on Wikipedia Openlydialectic (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I boldly copied the well sourced info about the Cern controversy and created a Wikinews story: https://en.m.wikinews.org/wiki/Cern_scientist_suspended_after_controversial_presentation Copyediting welcome, I don't have much experience wirh Wikinews! Gray62 (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out this hasn't been a good idea. License compatibility issues prevent the use of Wikipedia content for Wikinews. Can you imagine the idiocy? Wikinews is doomed, sadly. Gray62 (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gray62: Did you attribute it to this article? I wouldn't have thought much more was needed. In any case, why not ask our very own User:Pi zero here  ;) save polluting your feet once again at Wikinews. —5⁴¹²⁹ 18:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129, Wikinews is licensed under CC-BY-2.5, wikipedia under CC-BY-SA-3.0. The SA part is important, means derivatives of wikipedia content needs to be shared under the same or similar license. Gray62 cannot license the CC-BY-SA-3.0 content under another incompatible non-SA license; thus issue with copyright. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Galobtter. Well, if I was especially interested in the issue, I would invest further efforts, 54129. But I'm not. I just thought it would be only reasonable to recycle the well sourced content at Wikinews, but the license madness prevents that, even though that site is suffering under a lack of content. But that has to be discussed there, not here. I, for one, am frustrated now and won't waste any more time on it. Gray62 (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly, Gray62: That is the fundamental problem with taking poorly thought out projects of JW et al from the drawing board to reality with nothing but a mop-down and a thin hope to hang them on. Hey ho: thus goes the way of all things. —5⁴¹²⁹ 18:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article has been hijacked by the controversy (overnight since I stubbed it) but I believe him to be a notable physicist, a professor working on high energy physics at CERN with numerous scientific publications to his name. The controversy section should be shortened and form only a section in a longer biography and shouldn't prevent us recognising his wider notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me pls, but the article's history proves that this stub hasn't been hijacked by anyone else and that it was you who added all the stuff about a minor event, instead of providing biographical info! I'm honestly disturbed that you dare to lie into our (virtual) faces and only glad that out of lazyness I didn't vote for you getting adminship. Shame on you! Note: I will bring this to the attention of your sponsors. Gray62 (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gray62,uhhhhhh what exactly are you talking about? Philafrenzy's last edit had the article in this state, other people added the stuff about the controversy. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, shame on me! I must have misclicked when checking history. Horrible mistake. Philafrenzy, pls accept my sincere, heartfelt apology. I'm awfully sorry! Gray62 (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gray62: perhaps strike your remarks at 78.26's talk, then....? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already did, but thx for the reminder.Gray62 (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Strumia works in a different field of Particle Physics as I have, so I am not really in a position to comment on his notability as a peer. But it is very normal to be involved in a large number of publications at this stage of one's career, even for someone quite mediocre. I have created the Q-Item for Strumia and linked him to the handful of articles that he co-authored and that we have in the database, and found that he was first author or only one, which pertained to publimetrics rather than physics per se; this does not prove he is an negligible quantity, but does not prove his notoriety either. To nuance what Philafrenzy said, the Wikipedia article has never been hijacked by the controversy, it was created in response to it. That Strumia escaped notice until now could be due to his field being highly technical; it could also be due to his expert contributions at furthering physics being less notable than his inept attempts at reinventing sociology. If the former is true, we should see more on his career, but that has not happened for the moment; absent convincing discussions on his contributions to Particle physics, we should consider him to be one of the very numerous people whose collective work nurtures the CERN. Rama (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the controversy drew my attention to him, but that doesn't make him less notable as a scholar. I don't care if the controversy is just one line in the article. It's his physics we should write about and based on the citations he probably qualifies for an article on that score. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After my false accusations against you (egg on my face!), I really don't want to raise another stink, but pls consider this question: Since you started this stub, shouldn't you have already checked the notability question and have the necessary infos ready to be added to the article? Gray62 (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course his notability as a scholar is independent of the scandal brought upon him by his display of dudebrodery. But what is his scholarly notability, really? He seems known mostly for non-conformist theories ("faster than light"...) and meta-scientific comments on bibliometrics; these do not prove he is a quack, but they are usually not a good sign and certainly no proof of notability. Especially with the sexist nature of the controversy, the contrast is striking with Donna Strickland, who had to achieve a Nobel Prize for Wikipedia to take notice. Rama (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. While the article does seem to be 90% focused on WP:ONEEVENT controversy, he may pass WP:NPROF. His Google Scholar profile shows many citations, through his work is co-authored, and it is far from my field of sociology, so I am not sure what are the citation standards/etc. in that field. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per Rama and Piotrus. It's totally obvious that this stub doesn't even try to start an encyclopedic article about Strumia, but is focussed on one minor recent event at Cern. No other issue is covered in the text, no biographical points at all. The intention of Philafrenzy seems to be clear to me, even though he tries to hide it by omitting summaries (sth that had been criticized in his recent, failed RfA, too, and that he promised to avoid!). I usually don't take part in AfDs, so I'm not familiar with all the rules, but after checking WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NPROF and taking Rama's analysis of notability into account, imho this entry should be deleted. Honestly, I'm flabbergasted that someone who felt competent for adminship dares to create such a manipulative and fraudulent stub. Does he need to be reminded that “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist“? Gray62 (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What? I didn't write any of that Gray. Check the history. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it was my lousy mistake, I must have misclicked when comparing versions. Pls accept my sincere apology! Gray62 (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Taking a fresh look at the article, I see great improvement. Notability has been established, w/ good sources. Imho it's ok now. Gray62 (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The professor is very notable, partly as a result of CERN censoring his views rather than seeking to disprove them. The media is currently full of material about him. When, yesterday (01/10/2018), I wanted to find out about this man I came to Wikipedia, but there was no article: that says it all. You come to WP to find out about a notable person such as this. Silas Stoat (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If Strumia is notable, per Wikipedia guidelines, the article should at least try to prove it. But it doesn't, it only covers the minor event at Cern. Per guidelines, that ain't good enough as reason for an article about Strumia. That's the problem.Gray62 (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about you add some material about him. There's loads out there, leaving aside the recently controversy. 5.81.164.16 (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about you do that, since you claim you found loads of infos? Gray62 (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one complaining about it; you are! 5.81.164.16 (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without biographical info and proof of notability, this article will be deleted. Not a problem for me. Is it one for you? Gray62 (talk) 11:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Strumia is a physicist who gave a single pseudoscientific presentation on gender, misleading the event organisers, flouting rules of the event hosts, violating the code of conduct of his funding body and deliberately insulting his audience. It would have been strange if he were not suspended. The event may have been newsworthy at the time, but it doesn't make the individual notable (WP:ONEEVENT). It certainly doesn't warrant a detailed outline of the talk, or a bio presenting him as if these ideas are of scientific merit. Sometimes scientists make incompetent and unfortunate forays into topics well outside their expertise. Wikipedia doesn't exist to document these. If this event has repercussions beyond one news cycle and the repercussions for one individual, I would support a page on the event itself provided it accords with WP:FRINGE. Bobathon71 (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:NPROF easily, though article certainly needs work. There's coverage and in italian of his research; Per Scientific American he's a notable proponent of an unorthodox theory in particle physics. There's a paragraph in The New York Times on his research. All demonstrating WP:PROF#C1 Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]