< 9 March	11 March >

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. czar 15:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EwingCole[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG, is sourced mostly to press releases. There is a lack of significant coverage of the company in independent sources. Also, possible violation of WP:PROMO Rusf10 (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 21:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost entirely promotionally sourced --DannyS712 (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2019 (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. czar 15:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boss Cheer[edit]

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

Non-notable web series. Not enough in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources to show it passes WP:GNG. Currently the sourcing consists mostly of primary sources, with a couple of little more than press releases. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 20:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the lack of WP:Significant coverage --DannyS712 (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough in depth coverage from reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Most references are just youTube videos that are not independent or do not meet WP:RS. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2019 (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 to delete, with a distinct lean towards keeping as improved. bd2412 T 01:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Thorsen[edit]

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

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

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

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

No WP:RS to establish WP:ARTIST. Created by a SPA in 2009, with a potential COI given they uploaded the high quality image; been flagged since 2010. None of the Awards are verifiable, such that we could establish whether they are significant. The best I could get in a database search was "Haynes, Meghan. "Artist-designed doors merge form, function. (The Details)." Professional Builder [1993], Jan. 2003, p. SS10" which is essentially only a 125 advertisement for a companies services ("To learn more about Artisans Doors of Montana, visit www.artisandoors.com or call 406/756-9737.") Theredproject (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Despite having achieved "Eagle Scout rank" (really, see article), not notable based on published sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Weak Keep based on recent refbombing of sources. The sources here are very fringe, but the quantity pushes it over the top. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm updating the article's newspaper & magazine references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Froissart1989 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Thorsen is a highly respected figure in the art world. I can testify that many of his awards are verifiable and I will be making some edits to this article to legitimize its worthiness to remain here on Wikipedia. For instance, based on his appearances at the C. M. Russell Show alone he becomes a notable figure in art, and Western art in particular. This is a juried show where wanna be artists and hacks have zero chance of showing their artwork. To delete this article would be preposterous, indeed. I think it should be removed from the "articles considered for deletion" list immediately. ♥Golf (talk)

Unfortunately the "CM Russel" museum show does not make for instant notability. It's a cowboy art museum in Montana, not the Guggenheim in New York or the Louvre in Paris. Some of the recently added references (e.g. a ref for "The World Taxidermy and Fish Carving Championships") really say it all. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The C. M. Russell Show is the premiere western art show in the United States, period, full stop. ♥Golf (talk)

The above person is clearly an art snob. In his community, Eric regularly volunteers his time. He helps students learn to use 3D printers and apply CADD tools to design, he also aids in a plethora of other STEAM activities. The community is blessed with his time and consistent dedication to student learning. Eric is a brilliant artist, and this cannot be contested. Having travelled the world, spending a university year of Thursdays in le musée du Louvre à Paris, I have seen my fair share of art. From the Art Institute of Chicago to the Cluny, I know enough about sculpture. Simply because the above commentator does not appreciate "cowboy" art, does not mean it has no value. It is part of our history, even if it isn't to everyone's taste. I am not at all a fan of one whole hallway of Italian paintings in the Louvre; does this make them worthless? Of course not. To imply that simply because one lives in Montana he has no talent, taste for art, or sense of what is good art is simply closed-minded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannaburchwell (talk • contribs) 16:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC) — Shannaburchwell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's all nice, but we judge the notability of subject based on the notability policy, not on whether someone is a nice person, has talent, a taste for art, or a sense of what is good art. Also, please restrain your personal attacks per WP:NPA. There's really no need, we are all volunteers. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article has been expanded to 42,000 bytes from 3,000 since the nomination. Folks need to make sure to look at its current state and not rely on the description in the nomination. It currently has over 60 references mostly from regional media now, vice nomination's "no RS". Note that it is a fallacy to insist on media from NYC and other metropolises. Not to mention that such a course would lock in systemic bias, harmful to truly encyclopedic content, and which ought to be actively countered. In any event, there is no longer a compelling policy basis for deletion. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the refbombing with new sources has brought it to a keep status with no policy reasons for deletion, even though the refs are mostly weak very local mentions in the most fringe-like papers you can find.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Weak rationales and support for keeping the article while deletion is not endorsed too.

Consensus needs to be established.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 20:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The quality of the article was poor and it's still at best mediocre, but the artist is notable at a regional level (His name rang a bell with me, anyway, not that I'm an RS, but...) and looks like additional sources added are adequate. I located the following interview, if it helps any. Montanabw^(talk) 23:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC) [1][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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy's Ruler[edit]

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

This is a new scientific theory with no secondary or tertiary sources, and the only primary sources are essentially self-published, not peer-reviewed. At best it is WP:TOOSOON. The author of the article is the author of the only publications using this name. Lithopsian (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Legacypac (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't appear to be evidence that this method has been demonstrated or applied in any refereed publications to date, so there is no evidence of notability at this stage. An AAS conference abstract doesn't count as a reliable source per WP:SCHOLARSHIP because these abstracts are not vetted or refereed: it just means that the authors presented this as a contributed conference presentation. Aldebarium (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to give the new user the opportunity of adding secondary or tertiary sources that are reliable and published.Oceanflynn (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article is in its early stages and is a conference paper given to AAS. It is also included in Harvard's ADS database here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AAS...22810307R More references are to be entered and a more experienced Wiki editor than myself is being sought. This is my first article. This galactic distance measure is the result of finding a metric in a rotating coordinate system using an L2 norm. This is a common procedure, but references from Riemann and Lebesgue are certainly available. The Christoffel was first discovered by Landau. These references should perhaps be added, but the crux of your argument is not understood. The technique works and should be available for people to use and it should be included in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbrout (talk • contribs) 21:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not here to spread the word about new scientific theories or information. Such things must already be widely known and discussed in independent reliable sources in order to merit inclusion in Wikipedia, and even then only what those independent sources state can make up such an article. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia often carries articles on scientific theories both new and old. This is not a theory but a method. It works and it should be included. Other references are available and can be included.
  - There does not seem to be a response button so I am just editing the page itself. I hope that is ok.Bbrout (talk)
    - Yes, that is the correct thing to do. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Galaxy#Modern research and redirect - Sourcing is insufficient to demonstrate notability for a standalone article. All I could find is a paper written by the article's author. Plus, it was published in 1975, so there's no reason that if this were recognized as reliable science, it wouldn't have gotten at least some coverage somewhere. And, I'm mindful of the concerns raised above by @Aldebarium: and @331dot: about the overall lack of sourcing. Nonetheless, I'm on the fence about a pure delete versus merge. It would be a shame to remove info that is valid. One possible compromise could be to add a few sentences about different methods of measuring galaxies in the Galaxy article, sourced with this paper and others as appropriate. I'll post a note on the Galaxies talk page so that others more knowledgeable about this scientific area can also comment. And @Bbrout: - you responded the right way, but you can indent your comments by putting one or more colons (:) in front of your text, or create a new bullet with an asterisk (*). You can also reply to people by putting their user name in this format in the text: ((re|Bbrout)) TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- @Timtempleton: I think you may be misunderstanding the sourcing. If you're referring to the 1977 reference listed in the article, that paper describes the Tully-Fisher relation, which is well-established science but is not the primary subject of this particular article. The article in question for deletion is about a different method, which has no refereed publications or citations to establish notability. There is no justification to add this newly proposed method to the Galaxy article because there is no reliable source to cite for it, no refereed publications, and no evidence of scientific impact or usage by any other scientists. It's just a case of WP:NOR. Without reliable sources there is no basis to determine whether the method described in this article is valid, and the lack of reliable sources argues that the method does not meet WP:N. Aldebarium (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Aldebarium: You are correct in explaining the sourcing. The reference was to Tulley-Fisher. More references have been included. Independent sources of citation are also now included. The method was referred to in an arXiv article, which has also been included. Regarding whether the method actually works or not, this may be moot; however, as mentioned below, it was said to work by the editors of WikiHow. So your concern that it is not used by other scientists has been responded to. Furthermore, this method was being taught in some American universities and I am searching for evidence of this. More references and citations are being added. Thank you for your critique as it makes the article much better. Bbrout (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Aldebarium: - you are correct - I did misread the sourcing. Striking merge vote. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect

Thank you for all your comments

Some counter-points should be mentioned here in this discussion. This article concerns a method for finding the distances to galaxies which has not been previously published in Wikipedia. Furthermore, it does not rely on the use of dark matter nor MOND. Those in the discipline of astronomy, both amateur and professional, would know what this means. Therefore, I would request that comments include declarations of conflict of interest if any such conflict exists. I have already declared my conflict of interest on my home page.

The arguments for deletion mention the need for reliable sources. I have copied the linked page and will go through some of the points and respond to them. I think that is fair. I would also like to point out that this being my first article, I have not extensively included all references and it appears obvious these should be included. Therefore a merge and redirect might be very appropriate for now and perhaps, with greater use, it would garner its own article. Please keep in mind this is not a new theory, it is a method for measuring the distances to galaxies which does not involve red shift, luminosity, dark matter nor MOND.

What counts as a reliable source

Further information: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

   • The piece of work itself (the article, book)
       ◦ The article concerns a conference paper delivered to a AAS conference.
   • The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
       ◦ I wrote it and delivered it.
   • The publisher of the work 
       ◦ The work was previously vetted by NASA and published on the ADS database. Here http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AAS...22810307R

All three can affect reliability.

   •  Indeed

Articles must be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form".[7]

   • This method for measuring the distances to galaxies is also included in WikiHow: How to find the distance to a galaxy. The page has over 9,000 hits and so far, no one has found an error to this method. Also, I would like to mention, that the WikiHow article was listed for deletion when it was published five years ago with the same arguments as listed here; but the article was not deleted by the editors, since it was found to actually work. Therefore, this method has been made available to the public "in some form" for quite some time. 
   • Also, there is tremendous controversy over scientific publication at this time and I do not want to get into that argument. I will say that this method was vetted by NASA and approved to be a conference paper with the American Astronomical Society and included in the ADS database by Harvard.

Bbrout (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am a newbie and have had to catch up quickly. Thank you to those who lent a hand. There are two categories within the arguments for deletion, although there are variations in the thread. The first is that the author has been rejected by the scientific community along with his work and the second is the argument that the author is attempting to publish original research on Wikipedia.

To respond to the first argument, I uploaded a citing from Hilton Ratclilffe, a rather famous professional astronomer from South Africa. He's retired now. I don't personally know him but in the astronomy business, we sometimes talk to each other. His comments ignited some discussion, which is typical of Hilton. So, to be completely transparent, I have been blacklisted by the arXiv for well over ten years and blacklisted by Nature, the IOP and every other peer reviewed journal in the world. The reason they have done so is because I can prove dark matter does not exist and that the universe is not expanding. All of this has nothing whatsoever to do with the article itself or to it's appropriateness for inclusion in Wikipedia. This is an ad hominem as far as the author is concerned; it makes no difference who the author is. Unless, of course, she is really famous. Regarding content, editors are cherry-picking regarding Hilton and not mentioning Stephen James O'Meara. O'Meara is a world famous astronomer of incredible integrity. Stephen was the first to sight Halley’s Comet on its 1985 return and the first person to determine the rotation period of the distant planet Uranus. One of his most distinguished feats was the visual detection of the mysterious spokes in Saturn’s B-ring before the Voyager spacecraft imaged them. Stephen has been honored with several awards, including the prestigious Lone Star Gazer Award "for setting the standard of excellence in visual observing," the Omega Centauri Award "for advancing astronomy through observation, writing, and promotion, and for sharing his love of the sky", and the Caroline Herschel Award for his planetary discoveries. The International Astronomical Union named Asteroid 3637 O’Meara in his honor. He called me up personally from England to interview me for his book, which is now a standard handbook for both professional and amateur astronomers. I am very humbled by that. Neither he nor Hilton, have ever discredited any of my work let alone the distance measure of which the article, Roxy's Ruler, is about. Also, none of this has anything to do with the acceptability of the article, for or against. All of this is moot. Also as part of the history of the article's formula, the editor of the Astrophysical Journal, Ethan Vishniac, suggested in a phone call that I find a simple formula to determine galactic distance. He ended up blacklisting me because the formula actually works. However, again, that has nothing to do with the article's acceptance. @David notMD: which author, please, takes "my formula" into dispute?

Regarding content: it does not matter if the formula actually works or not. That is nonsense. The detractors cannot say they do not want original research, (which is a point I agree with), and then say articles have to be peer reviewed. Articles in Wikipedia do not have to be peer reviewed and they can be written by anybody. They don't have to "work" or be scientifically correct. They do, however, have to factual. The only reference to my own work in the article is a citation to the ADS abstract of a conference paper. Citations to ADS and to conference papers happen all the time in Wikipedia. The article is not about a conference paper, it's about a method to measure the distances to galaxies which is used by alternative cosmologists, amateur observers, amateur radio astronomers, and is included in a world-famous handbook for astronomical observationalists. It is also taught in some astronomy courses in American universities and colleges^{[citation needed]}. It is controversial because, if it is used, it is discovered that the universe is not physically expanding and that there is no need for dark matter or MOND. The author has been blacklisted by every peer-reviewed journal on the planet and, in spite of that, for some unknown reason, one of his papers was approved by NASA to be given to a congress of the American Astronomical Society. After close to ten years, no one has disproved method's correctness.

This article should not be deleted. It is of interest to the public and it is both useful and factual. It should be kept or merged with another article. You do have an article for Non-standard cosmology, so it might work there. Bbrout (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: The above comments were moved as a result of a request by @David notMD: (see talk) and was not intended to disrupt the flow of discussion. Bbrout (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENTS:

@David notMD: asked on my talk page that I back up this article because it was going to be deleted. There is no backup of this article, not in my sandbox nor anywhere on or off line. There is only one copy of the article, which is on the article page. If the article is deleted, it is deleted forever never to return. Ever. There is no trash can and no un-delete key.

Erm... there's nothing stopping you from making a copy at any time, like NOW, you know? (Unless you wish it to be gone forever as some kind of statement...) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: I don't understand. No "statement", other than silence, would result in the article's deletion. No one would care. Neither you nor anyone else would be able to see it on Wikipedia either now or in the future whether I have a backup or not. There is no reason to have a backup. (Although TBH, I think I saw it somewhere on another site). I am too old to be playing games. I also don't know how and I am not very good at it. If you find the article useful, then I see no reason why you, yourself, couldn't make your own backup although there are references to much better articles and instructions for how to use Roxy's Ruler elsewhere. I have a longer note below to Marchjuly which may clarify. Bbrout (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PEER REVIEW: I have two rhetorical questions regarding peer review:

1. Should articles in Wikipedia be peer reviewed?

No. Peer review is for original research which does not belong in Wikipedia.

2. Should Wikipedia articles only be about peer reviewed material?

No.

This article is not original research, it is a method to determine the distances to galaxies which ... etc. The conference paper in question is a reference or citation which is not part of the article. That was corrected.

Peer reviewed articles are being retracted at an alarming rate. Peer review does not indicate validation or scientific correctness, it just means that the paper, or whatever, has been reviewed by a member of the scientific community. References and citations in Wikipedia need to be from reliable sources of which peer reviewed articles are included. Citations of conference papers and citations to ADS abstracts are also often made in Wikipedia. Bbrout (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bbrout's own Talk page mentions that astronomy journals have rejected submitted manuscripts. AND mentions an author who takes Rout's formula to dispute the red-shift theory of an expanding universe. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not WikiHow and a conference abstract. David notMD (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR is policy: "If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery". Bakazaka (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No citations, rejected by peer review, OR, lacks notability, et al. Implications challenge mainstream interpretations which sets a high bar for creating an entire article. A non-standard cosmology also reduces the likelihood that it will be accepted for publication in a legitimate journal or discussed by the field. The Static Universe endorsement is attributed to Hilton Ratcliffe who has "published" in the "Journal" of Cosmology. (Some of the material in A Brief History of Galactic Distance Measurements could be merged to extragalactic distance scale, if it is not already there) --mikeu ^talk 22:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a textbook case of the type of original research which is prohibited from Wikipedia by policy. Mention by a fringe scientist in a dubious journal such as the Journal of Cosmology does not amount to significant coverage in reliable sources. WikiHow may be an entertaining and Interesting website but it is most definitely not a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, since it consists of user-submitted content without professional editorial review. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Aldebarium. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notwithstanding the above voluminous demonstrations that the author does not understand why we have notability rules: Wikipedia is not the place for the popularizing of scientific concepts or findings; it is a place to summarize them once they have been popularized. Until then, stick to the peer-reviewed publication process. It offers fewer shortcuts but that's the playing field. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The "keep" arguments seem to be primarily WP:VALINFO, WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:EFFORT, which in my opinion are not sufficient enough to overcome WP:NOR and WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps as some have pointed out, there will more written about this in reliable sources in the (near) future, but the mainspace's purpose is not (once again in my opinion) to act as an incubator for "articles" about subjects which might someday be the subject of WP:SIGCOV. Nobody has suggested this yet, WP:DRAFTIFY or WP:USERFY might be worth considering if there's a strong feeling that this might someday be notable; the creator or anyone else interested in doing so can continue to work on imroving and adding citations to reliable sources. Then, it can be submitted for WP:AFC review if or when the concerns expressed in this AfD have been addressed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Marchjuly: How would I go about following your suggestion? Bbrout (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Bbrout: You can state that you want the page to either be draftified or userfied and see what others think. Such a request may be granted as long as nobody strongly opposes it because it will only delay the inevitable, i.e. deletion. You need to understand that the draft namespace (in particular) and the user namespace are not really intended to be holding pens to place content which has serious concerns about ever meeting Wikipedia's notability requirements; so, you should only request something such as this if you really intend to continue to improve the article and continue to look for the significant coverage in reliable sources which help meet the concerns being raised by others in this discussion. You should not see this as a way to create a quasi-article, just to keep the content somewhere on Wikipedia. You should also understand that if such a request is approved, it will mean that others will likely be watching your progress to make sure that you're moving in the right direction. Even a draft or a userspace draft can be nominated/tagged for deletion if it appears to be going nowhere or is just an attempt to use Wikipedia in an inappropriate way. I also suggest that now is the best time to copy and paste whatever content you want saved from the article onto your computer because you won't be able to see it if the consensus here turns out to be delete. So, if you want an off-Wikipedia record of your work, you should create one now. Finally, a notification like ((re)) only works if the post is signed when you click "Publish changes"; it won't work for unsigned posts and going back to add a signature to an unsigned post won't make it work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Marchjuly: Thank you. Your comments are very useful. From what you say I don't think there is any value in draftifying or userfying. If the article is deleted I see no way it can come back and I don't want to see it hidden and just taking up people's time for no reason. So I appreciate your direct explanation. The issue has nothing to do with peer review, all of that is just a red herring. The issue is whether or not Roxy's Ruler is original research. I cannot fathom how anyone could see it as such. It is just a way to measure the distances to galaxies which is simple to use and available to anyone. It would never be peer reviewed nor placed in a journal because it is already being used, hence it would not be seen as original research by a journal. And a journal would just put it behind a paywall anyway if it did see it as such. If it is judged to be original research by Wikipedia editors, then it would never be in Wikipedia no matter what happens. However, that is the crux of the argument. Peer review requirements are completely irrelevant. Thanks for giving me a space to state that clearly. If its popularity of use comes to light somehow, and under the circumstances of modern science these days I cannot see how that would happen, then the article would have to be so drastically changed that it would be much easier to start it over from scratch. (That would be the task of some poor unfortunate). I already know what the article says so there is no reason to have a backup. I put the four tildes in before writing this note because I'm old and forget things. Again, thank you for your kind and straightforward comments. tldr: Roxy's Ruler is either original research or it is not. Bbrout (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just want to clarify that a reliable source which is behind a paywall can be cited in a Wikipedia article per WP:PAYWALL. So, as long as the source is reasonably accessible so that it can be verified to say what it's being claimed to say and that it's being used in proper context, it shouldn't be an issue. Moreover, there are ways to format a citation to indicate to the reader that some form of registration or subscription is required to view the source. A reliable source only needs to be WP:PUBLISHED; it doesn't need to be freely available online, either completely or in some part. There are lots of different types of editors on Wikipedia and many can and do have access to sources behind paywalls or online databases, etc. (see WP:SHARED and Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Databases); so, that's not going to really a valid reason for deleting any article from Wikipedia (see WP:NEXIST). WP:OR doesn't mean that what's being written about is false or useless garbage; it's just that Wikipedia requires verifiability to a high degree. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete. Article should have never been allowed to have been made in the first place. Was it an WP:AFC submission or was the user given creation rights? jps (talk) 11:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The points raised by mikeu and Cullen are compelling. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JoJo Anthrax: mikeu is self-contradictory and excludes the Cambridge citation. Peer review is for original research and this article is not original research. It should therefore be kept. Not one comment has stated how this is original research. This article is in response, in part, to the requested articles page. Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Natural_sciences. This is a requested article. Comment by User:Cullen328 et al are irrelevant although it does direct towards what original research is. Again, no one has supported their case for deletion by giving any evidence of this article being original research. Much of the comments are treating the article as though it would be a submission to a scientific journal. It would not qualify as such. I am not saying this in anger at all; I am just pointing out what is being said. Wikipedia is not for original research. I therefore ask you, and others, specifically and without hand-waving, how is this article original research? If there is a specific instance of original research in the article, (I think we know what is meant by that: in the article itself), the article could be edited and that be removed.

Continuing on: The article does not claim that dark matter does not exist nor does it claim that the universe is not expanding. (I'm going back to it to make sure it doesn't and editing it if if does). The article says everybody else is finding out that dark matter doesn't exist and that the universe is not expanding by using Roxy's Ruler. (NOTE: This has been removed by another editor). There are no journal articles on Roxy's Ruler because it is not scientific research. There may be some pre-print stuff, but I have not published any peer reviewed articles on Roxy's Ruler. Personally I think the issue here is no one know how Roxy's Ruler actually works. It is certainly not anything new. Spirals were invented by Archimedes and that is public knowledge. Spiral galaxies look like spirals. That is not new and is public knowledge. The speed of light is constant as is the "speed of gravitational influence" and again, that is not new and is public knowledge.

We pick up a ruler which consists of mathematical techniques which have stood the test of time. We hold it up and measure the universe with it. Lo and behold we see the universe is not expanding; it is infinite and eternal. Now, the statement that the universe is not expanding is not a part of Wikipedia as a "new" statement; many people have made that statement elsewhere. That is definitely not original research. I think we all agree on that. However, the fact that people are finding out the universe is not expanding, although not original research, may qualify for an article. Nevertheless, the ruler itself does qualify as a Wikipedia article. (People know about it, it's useful, it's factual and it is of interest to the public). That is obvious. The ruler is not original research. That being said, and to be fair, if anyone can clearly point out, without hand-waving, how Roxy's Ruler, which consists of mathematical techniques that have stood the test of time, is original research, then the delete side wins. If no one can, the keep side wins. Oversimplification: How is a spiral original research?

tl;dr: Wikipedia editors are challenged to state clearly how the Roxy's Ruler article is original research without using an antithesis as a thesis. Bbrout (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Roxy's Ruler" is original research because you developed it (it is original to you) and because "Roxy's Ruler" as a topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of you. Is that clear, Bbrout? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: No, it is not clear. Yes, I came up with the formula over ten years ago. That is a conflict of interest which I have declared. It is questionable to be called a "topic", but moving on. Coverage, whatever that means, has been deleted in the article. However, that may be a correct thing for an editor to do. These references included reliable independent sources from myself. You have not answered the question: how is this classified as "research"? How could this possibly be a scientific journal article or part of one? What, specifically, about Roxy's Ruler is research?Bbrout (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Bbrout. "Topic" in this context refers to the subject of any Wikipedia article, which might be a city or a person or a butterfly or a sculpture or a mathematical theorum or a galaxy or an event in history. "Research" in the policy forbidding original research includes any individual editor's personal experience, personal ideas, personal theories or personal knowledge and anything else that is based on what an editor thinks and knows. It is far broader than academic research and includes drinking games that a person has developed and then tries to write about on Wikipedia. It includes what a Wikipedia editor has learned in their personal life about a famous relative. That is all original research in Wikipedia terms. "Independent" means that the reliable source has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic or the person who developed the topic. When you write "reliable independent sources from myself", that is powerful evidence that you have absolutely no idea how Wikipedia actually works. The closing adminstrator will decide whether your arguments are based on an understanding of Wikipedia policies, or whether I and the other editors recommending deletion understand those policies better. I am quite confident of the outcome. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings again to you @Cullen328: You are correct on what a topic is and Roxy's Ruler is a topic. I stand corrected. "reliable independent sources from myself" should read "other than myself". That is what I had meant by independent. Whether you are confident or whether I have any idea of what I am doing have nothing to do with the acceptability of the article. However, you are getting to the meat of the issue. Your statement of what is scientific research appears to be something you just made up. This, I think, is the paragraph in original research that may apply:

Original research can take a number of forms, depending on the discipline it pertains to. In experimental work, it typically involves direct or indirect observation of the researched subject(s), e.g., in the laboratory or in the field, documents the methodology, results, and conclusions of an experiment or set of experiments, or offers a novel interpretation of previous results. In analytical work, there are typically some new (for example) mathematical results produced, or a new way of approaching an existing problem. In some subjects which do not typically carry out experimentation or analysis of this kind, the originality is in the particular way existing understanding is changed or re-interpreted based on the outcome of the work of the researcher.[8]

I have made bold the pertinent part. In this case, Roxy's Ruler is classified as original research and you win the argument. I shall delete the article. Bbrout (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bbrout, only an uninvolved administrator can delete the article. You are involved and you are not an administrator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I stand corrected. It seems you are winning all of our arguments :-) Bbrout (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Bbrout: This page might qualify for speedy deletion if you blank the page (by removing the current text that you've added) and replace it with ((db-author)). That is the process for requesting deletion. Please leave the existing notice about article for deletion in place though. --mikeu ^talk 10:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Hi @Cullen328:, co-author of original article here, thanks for your guidance. The distance measure is pretty simple to derive and the comparison to TF and Ceiphids shows that it's accurate, so while I understand that it does constitutes OR, it may still be interesting or useful. Is there any other recommended forum for discussing new topics? I'm sure you can imagine how hard it is to find a forum to discuss a method that calculates unexpected results despite the straightforwardness of its derivation. We've shared this measure at conferences at the AAS, the Canadian Association of Physicists, the National Radio Observatory at Greenbank, Stanford University, and Embry-Riddle, and has always garnered some interesting conversation.

Comment: The above vote was a copy-paste error. I intended to vote to keep.

@Cameronrout: The above comment is not signed. You need to sign your comments with four tildes at the end of it. Otherwise the ping won't go through. Bbrout (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ::@Cameronrout: One last comment after reviewing the the complete discussion. I'm not sure if through all of this it was noticed that the work is described in Stephen James O'Meara's book ten years ago, this seems to be ignored by all Delete votes. O'Meara is a popular and respected author on the topic which I believe makes a strong case for it being interesting to the community and no longer original. Cameronrout (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The above comment pings the originator of the comment. Perhaps it should ping @Cullen328:? Bbrout (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment As mentioned above, Cameron Rout is a co-author with Bruce Rout on reference #5, and presumably a family member. Does not preclude Cameronrout from voting Keep, but not an independent opinion. Adding O'Meara as a reference does not absolve this article from being original research, unpublished in peer-reviewed astrophysics journals. David notMD (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Coment No @David notMD:, it does. This is a direct quote used by Wikipedia itself:

Primary sources are original materials on which other research is based, including:
original written works – poems, diaries, court records, interviews, surveys , and original research/fieldwork, and research published in scholarly/academic journals.

— -http://libguides.merrimack.edu/research_help/Sources, originating from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_source

May I add that conference papers, depending on the conference, are often used as reliable sources on Wikipedia. I have run into tons of them in using references in papers which both I and Cameronrout write. That being said, the issue is, I think, some independent reliable source after the fact. Bbrout (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- @Cameronrout: Your account was created way back in November 2006, but seems to have remained unused until you posted here in this thread. I don't think I would be the only editor to find such a thing more than just a bit unusual; so, perhaps you could clarify why after all these years you've decided to resume editing Wikipedia by adding a comment to an somewhat obscure AfD discussion. If by chance you were asked to participate in the discussion, then please clarify. Please also be aware that there are some Wikipedia administrators who are pretty good a detecting things like WP:MEAT and WP:SOCK; so, if these might apply to you and you didn't know such things weren't allowed, you should clarify things before it gets too late to do so because the consequences can be quite harsh if you don't. As for the link you've provided, it's simply to an Amazon page about a book; it's not really an example of the type of significant coverage others have been mentioning in above. It might help if you can provide more (i.e. page numbers, etc.) details on what the book says about "Roxy's Ruler" on the talk page of this AfD discussion for the benefit of others. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Marchjuly: I'll let Cameronrout speak for himself. He was listed as a co-author of a conference paper on reference 5 in the article. He has a conflict of interest which I am sure he is willing to declare, but he may not know how. Unfortunately, neither do I. Perhaps you can help him with that. The link concerning "it's simply to an Amazon page about a book" refers to, what is now, reference 13 in the article complete with page numbers and so on. It was mentioned in my lengthy comment above. An editor had deleted it and this has caused confusion. It has been added back in. O'Meara, Stephen. The secret deep. Cambridge University Press. pp. 186–188. ISBN 978-0521198769. Bbrout (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Cameron Rout is a family member, not Sock Puppet. And not Meat, either, as having been co-author of a paper means not just a warm body added to the chorus. My point in pointing out the name connection is that Cameronrout should have been clearer about the connection. And with this comment, I am out of here, as nothing else to add. David notMD (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- @Marchjuly: The first thing I mentioned above was that I am co-author on the paper, as noted by David notMD. I don't know how to make my connection to the topic any more clear and I have no idea why the fact my account is over a decade old should be a strike against my legitimacy compared to the fact that I actually co-authored the discovery in question. I find your comments and several others in this thread to be hostile and pretentious, betraying extreme biases in the selectivity of comments. The voracity and haste at which this article was ripped apart with references and details deleted wholesale without any conversation has me concerned and has made it very difficult to explain clearly why this is a reasonable topic for inclusion because every response is only exposed to half of the information provided. I am jumping in now to comment for the first time in a decade simply because it's the first time I've had to defend myself from such professional miscategorization. For the sake of my own reputation, I think it's important to have a chance to state for the record why this topic is interesting and should be in Wikipedia, especially after the brutal cherry-picking, interference, and near name-calling I've had to endure by reading this thread.

It's okay to believe that we are quacks, it's okay to believe that the method does not work despite the validation provided, it's okay to think that the Society of Amateur Radio Astronomers does not qualify as a valid scientific community or should never have invited us to 3 of their conferences, it's okay to think that the American Astronomical Society and the Canadian Association of Physicists are not qualified to determine this topic is of interest to the scientific community by inviting us to their national conferences, it's okay that you think a topic has to be peer reviewed rather than only published in texts like O'Meara's in order to be on Wikipedia, but it doesn't, and your own rules of your own community state that none of these opinions should prevent this obviously interesting topic from being documented.

THIS TOPIC IS CONTROVERSIAL. Why is that a problem? It's also fascinating and well validated and has generated hundreds of interesting conversations across the country over the years. Instead of embracing an interesting but controversial topic and simply documenting it, this community is trying to make declarations as to which sources should constitute legitimacy. I do not believe that is the purpose of this community at all and I would like to see those involved in this process start applying the principles with judicious objectivity.Cameronrout (talk) 07:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, The process has not been proved to be correct yet. Alex-h (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjib Chiram[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:MUSICBIO. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --Hiwilms (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm sure he's good, but he fails WP:MUSICBIO. There's no allegation of notability at all. Bearian (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rechon Black[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH. TM 18:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me what is wrong with this and I will fix it. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by UNC2 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't enough independent, reliable sources that cover the subject in detail. Please read the policies I cited above.--TM 01:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not seeing sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCOLLATH. It would not surprise me if he becomes notable in the future, but right now appears WP:TOOSOON. Rikster2 (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rikster2. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per guideline WP:WHYN, We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. The coverage I am finding is mostly from high school and expectations entering his college freshman year. Writing anything beyond a WP:STUB at this point would require scraping for content that fails WP:NOTDIARY.—Bagumba (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not notable, maybe it is WP:TOOSOON and he can be notable in the future, but for the moment he fails WP:GNG or WP:NCOLLATH. Alex-h (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Platek[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Subject does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL, WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG. No sources on article are independent/reliable. Perhaps will someday receive the coverage needed to meet GNG, but a WP:BEFORE search doesn’t indicate this is the case yet. Rikster2 (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added more reliable sources, if there is anything else I need to add I will just please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UNC2 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added another source I think is reliable also ESPN should be a reliable sense it is one of the biggest in the sports news industry’s and it fits the reliable source credentials. If there is anything else please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UNC2 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure ESPN is reliable. But you posted his recruiting profile which literally every D1 player has in there - that is not substantial coverage. Rikster2 (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn’t Albany Times Union News a reliable source. UNC2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by UNC2 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s routine coverage. Again, anyone who signs with a D1 school is going to get a short blurb in their hometown paper. That’s not “Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team“ like WP:NCOLLATH states. Rikster2 (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing I can do so if you have to get rid of it you can. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UNC2 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH. Simply being a member of a top college program isn't enough to establish notability and his actual, non-primary source, coverage is not out of the norm. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from multiple, independent sources. Does not meet WP:NCOLLATH.—Bagumba (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree it fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH. Brian (talk) 07:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he appears to be a common college athlete. Perhaps it's just too soon. FWIW, I have been an op-ed contributor to the Albany Times-Union. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rijas Rammar[edit]

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

I tried searching by his name in Urdu, birth name and AKA and found nothing in the way of coverage and very little in the way of even unreliable sources to support the only significant claim in the article. Fails GNG/N...everything. Praxidicae (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - claim of notability, but no evidence of it being a valid claim. No prejudice against recreation if/when sources appear, but WP:BEFORE didn't reveal any --DannyS712 (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I also think this article also qualifies for G5 as the creator was blocked as a sock. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Niemczycka-Gottfried[edit]

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

No independent third party sources support this subject as being notable. References consist of only primary sources, including articles she personally wrote, a LinkedIn page, and so on. Also, this is pretty much PR for the subject and her affiliate companies. The Polish sources can be translated well enough with Google Translate. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NBIO, passing / paid-for promotional coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like promotional content with links to social media networking sites and other bogus citations. Cites alebank.pl pages way too much. Does not meet WP:NBIO. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dillon Kivo[edit]

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

This article has a great many sources. However, none of them meet our criteria for independent, reliable sources. Even the ones that are in nominally mainstream publications (e.g., the Chicago Tribune) are by 'community contributors' — or Dillon himself. Really, the only reason I'm not just putting this through speedy or prod is that it was created by someone who's been around for a while and a) should know better and b) will probably protest if it's deleted without a full AfD. DS (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a creator of this article. First of all, i've contributed numerous article of wikipedia. The admin who has put afd on this article hasn't done it on proper way as i did't got any notice. Thirdly, the community contributor on chicago tribune who published his article is in different name (Dillon hasn't kept himeslf) cause in large publications the editors and journalist are also named as contributor cause they cobtribute an article and last thing is he has been featured on forbes and various other international indpeendt mag and independent news sources which shows he is notable and he has won "National Honor Society" award too. [2] so, any other discussions are welcome here and article should be kept. AD ^Talk 17:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One piece published today in the Capital Gazette does not equate to significant in depth coverage. Particularly when the piece is mostly an interview, puff piece and written by a contributor and not their editorial staff. Praxidicae (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and my above comment. Praxidicae (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability. The piece highlighted by Azkord above is yet another one by a "Contributing Reader" or "Community Contributor". In fact, it's credited to the same name as the Chicago Tribune piece and the Daily Press piece. No, staff journalists aren't called that. The Capital Gazette has a dedicated FAQ about community contributors here and clearly distinguishes between them on the one hand and "Baltimore Sun Media Group newsrooms and trusted third-party vendors" on the other. None of the other sources cited in the article are of better quality. Huon (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article was created on March 3. On March 6 we have this. That's... quick. Huon (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And on that note, Azkord can you explain how you assessed notability and wrote this article supposedly based on the Capital Gazette source which wasn't even published until 7 days after you created the article? Praxidicae (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae i usually use to check article from google news. Put the name there and it will appear on news index. Nepalese are not that much bad while using internet. And check your commons reply. AD ^Talk 17:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Azkord That doesn't even remotely begin to answer my question. You assessed notability on March 3rd, based on a source that did not exist until March 10th. How? Are you a time traveler? Praxidicae (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And i am not claiming notability here. I was mentioning the new article which i found on google i think i have right to do that and if you think that it claims notabilty than in what based you're commenting that the article should be deleted? AD ^Talk 17:58, 14 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclio[edit]

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

Poorly sourced, promotional article about unremarkable software. Fails WP:PRODUCT. Likely covert advertising. MER-C 15:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge into Serverless computing with changes adhering to COI policies. Rob3512 _chat? ^{what I did} 03:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs more secondary sources. Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY.Gr88scott (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of secondary source coverage. Remove mention from Serverless computing and do not redirect there unless the mention of Nuclio can be sourced to reliable, secondary refs. czar 15:53, 17 March 2019 (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) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 14:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Chips[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable Amisom (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article includes links to eight sources, including multiple dedicated articles from independent sources. --Danski454 (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets GNG. See the sources I presented in the last AfD discussion for examples (some are 404 now). More sources exist in addition to these as well. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References in article meet WP:GNG (the Washingtom Post is a quality WP:SIGCOV). Tricky product to search for given "generic name", but when combined with the founders name, even more decent references turn up (e.g. here from Cigar Aficionado). I don't see how its notability has decreased from the 2014 AfD? Britishfinance (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Mohammad Habali[edit]

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

Sad, but does pass WP:NEVENT or WP:NCRIME. Occurred in December 2018 - references in article are all from December 2018. BEFORE in English, Hebrew, and Arabic shows coverage is mostly limited to December close to the event, with a little bit of coverage (some of it unreliable) continuing in January. No coverage in February or March. Thus we fail WP:SUSTAINED and WP:LASTING impact of this sad event is unclear. Icewhiz (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Military's police investigation is ongoing and there will be their reports, soon or late. See Death of Mustafa Tamimi where later reports came after the incident. I'm astonished by the nomination though! --Mhhossein ^talk 12:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, maybe not. Given there is no continuing coverage of this (and coverage limited to a certain month), we should assume not. Tamimi got continuing coverage to a large extent due to the family and the specific village being very famous with various subsequent events - without coverage centered on Ahed Tamimi and her family, it is unlikely it would've been covered in a sustained fashion. Sadly such events are far too routine and common in the West Bank. Icewhiz (talk) 12:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you rushed into this nomination given the fact that the last sources dealing with this subject date back to 2-3 months ago, which are not too far from us! --Mhhossein ^talk 14:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are all confined to the month of the event (+ a little bit of spillover to the next month - in less reliable or non-reliable sources) - this is a rather strong indication of lack of continuing coverage. In Dec/Jan it might have been worth waiting a bit for the nomination to see if coverage continues - but we're now in March. Icewhiz (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. If anything significant emerges from the military investigation (unlikely IMO), then the article can always be recreated. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A quick search led me to this fresh source. Al-Haq, an independent Palestinian human-rights organization, have sent Submission to UN Special Rapporteur regarding issues among them Death of Mohammad Habali. There's also this one from mid Jan. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is al-Haq's own website from 1 Feb.Icewhiz (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So what? --Mhhossein ^talk 10:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of persistent coverage; nothing in reliable sources since January this year. If coverage picks up again when (if?) the report is released, the article can be restored to draft space, I expect. ——SerialNumber54129 12:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Serial Number 54129 and Icewhiz. Although I have contributed in improving this page, my first thought was to AfD it since I had concerns that it fails WP:LASTING and WP:BLP1E. It seems that community feels that this does not reach the mark per WP:NOTNEWS and I agree.--DBigXrayᗙ 13:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has been sentenced too harshly. As WP:LASTING mentioned, "This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable" as well as the event is ongoing with such sources btselem(2 mounth age) and parliament.Saff V. (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment but I should add that the Btselem source belongs to less than 2 months ago. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a sad death that fails WP:NCRIME and WP:NEVENT because coverage petered out shortly after the event, and no indication of any WP:EFFECT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just like Killing of Esther Ohana. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Ohana was killed in 1983. The page was started last year. If you run a search of her name in books or news, you will find WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE over many decades. Notability is more difficult to establish for recent events, but some very recent events do have WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, stuff like in depth journalism and thoughtful commentary by notable individuals in the weeks and months after the initial flurry of coverage. Take a look at some recent EVENTS like January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation, 2019 Pulwama attack, Killing of Aya Maasarwe, to understand the types of coverage that are lacking on this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I say it's too soon to say the subject in question fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE or WP:LASTING given the latest sources being published some ten days ago. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm just bewildered by the above comments saying the subject fails WP:LASTING and etc while the latest source dealing with the subject belongs to almost 20 days ago and another source belongs to 50 days ago. I strongly believe it's too soon to assess whether or not the article passes WP:LASTING. More over, as Saff V. mentioned, per WP:LASTING, recent events with unproven lasting effect can not be automatically considered non-notable. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE with WP:LASTING.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to see WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." --Mhhossein ^talk 14:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

we here are assessing the notability after 4 months of the event. By no stretch of imagination can 4 months, be considered "shortly after the event occurs" --DBigXrayᗙ 15:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And we have sources for some ten days ago. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory: WP:EVENT says "An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or ... receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time." So it is not necessary to satisfy both WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:LASTING for an event to be notable.VR _talk 04:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this event has neither WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE nor WP:LASTING.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to meet none of the requirements cited by editor above to be regarded as a notable crime. PE65000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PE65000 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources for the coverage of the event are both diverse (Palestinian, Israeli, American [3] and Russian) and enduring (a Palestinian NGO submitted a report on him to the UN just last month). So this meets our coverage policy.VR _talk
RT which you link to above is not a RS. The event itself, as many events in the West Bank, received diverse coverage at the time of the event. However, WP:SUSTAINED coverage is lacking. That the most recent source of any nature presented here is a 1 month+ old report from Al-Haq sourced to Al-Haq's own website - is a rather strong indication of lack of sustained coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I presume it possesses sufficient related sources. I'm not sure why some users here think it's a suitable time to say continued coverage is OK or not, particularly by paying heed that it looks to be a continuing event by some media/investigators, that even can publish more related info. in future. There are also recent sources provided in this discussion. I think we can let the article go for some more months and see if there are more reliable sources. --Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:SUSTAINED. Coverage petered out after December. Here: is a gNews Search on "Mohammad Habali: filtered by most recent date: [4]. The Jan. 17 mention by partisan NGO B'Tselem is not news outlets. I cannot find and no editors weighting in above have shown WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Fails WP:NCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

gNews is not going to be our criteria! There's no guideline saying the sources should be News outlet. It's too soon to speak about the sustained coverage and, as I said, the OP just rushed into this nomination. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read WP:GNG and WP:SOURCES. My point is that I cannot find INDEPENDENT WP:RS covering this event beyond a brief 3 - 4 week period when it happened.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three months is a reasonable, routine period to wait to bring an EVENT to AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not three months! The latest source dealing with the subject belongs to almost 20 days ago and another source belongs to almost 50 days ago. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EI is not reliable, and furthermore is on a different topic, covering this incident in a single sentence - a passing mention. That this is being presented here as a source.... Actually proves lack of substantial continuing coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Mhhossein is page creator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of RSs continuing coverage since the event. If more coverage is found in RSs in the future, then the page should be re-created, until then, delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable death during military response to civil disturbance.A.Jacobin (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the IDF POV, not a fact! Numerous reliable sources, including Israeli sources, casted doubt over the claim by the IDF. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a perfectly valid interpretation of the level of sourcing. No personal attacks applies here, as it's a direct implication that you believe this user is displaying bias. When frankly the only person whose been pushing a POV and non-collaboration with other users is you. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was a wrong interpretation of my comment. No, I did not say he was "displaying bias". @Joseph2302: You need to be warned against casting aspersions. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Time line of the most recent sources: There had been a reasonable number of English sources months after the incident:

6 January 2019 by the Lobelog.
17 January 2019 by EFE.
1 February 2019 by Al-Haq
14 February 2019 by Electronic Intifada (this source can be used when attributed per WP:RSP).

For 'Sustained' to be applied, it's not needed for a subject to be covered by sources every day. Moreover, "sufficiently significant period of time" is needed to say whether or not there's a sustained coverage.--Mhhossein ^talk 13:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are: a blog; a brief mention in a wire service story - we don't know the date of the wire service story, only that it was picked up by a newspaper 2 months ago; a mention by partisan org Al-Haq; the partisan org Electronic Intifada. This is not WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I have reviewed the sources posted above by the article creator and I agree with the comment by E.M.Gregory about the problems with them. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed this list of "sources" actually indicates lack of notability - if this is the best that can be found.Icewhiz (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above two comments. Sources are insufficient. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2019 (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. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir Sports Watch[edit]

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

This magazine appear to fail at WP:NWEB as well as WP:GNG. No substantial coverage in reliable source can be traced. Tone is promotional too. Hitro talk 09:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. WP:G11. --Hiwilms (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi there, Actually at first when I created this page, I knew almost nothing about Wikipedia guidelines and had put in wrong references for the page: Kashmir Sports Watch. However, later after learning the basics, I edited the piece and placed the proper, reliable sources in the article. The magazine is registered under Newspapers Registrar for India (NRI), whose reference I have added to the piece alongside few other valuable sources. Since, it's the only sports magazine existing in Kashmir at now, I being a sports fanatic read it quite often. So, having a page of it on Wikipedia makes sense, for sure. If someone from senior editors can now take a look at this page and let me know what's lacking in it and how can it be removed from under deletion articles. Thanks Mohsin Kamal (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per WP:N, WP:PROMO. @Mohsin Kamal: The problem is that the content of Wikipedia pages have to be verifiable in independent reliable secondary sources, and there needs to be enough analysis in those sources that we can actually write an article. If it's a major regional publication, then it has some significance, but if we can't write anything other than "it exists, and is based here", then it doesn't really merit a standalone article with our current content policy. However, if it is significant to the region, it may be due weight to mention it on the article for the place, in a "Media" section which you can create, in which case the article can be redirected there. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The discussion concluded that the subject is not notable. There was some discussion of a merge, but it did not gain consensus. However, if so advised any editor could discuss doing so at the proposed target's talk page Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of accredited naturopathic medicine programs[edit]

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

List article which merely refects the website of a non-notable accreditation body. Article was restored following a PROD. There's no evidence of wider interest in the subject, or the Council. Wikipedia isn't free web-hosting. Time for it to go or, if the accrediting body proves to be notable in the future, it could be added there. Sionk (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This feels like a COI–PROMO situation. The article has been put up for several deletions (WP:G8, WP:A7 and Prod), but keeps returning. The accrediting entity is not WP notable Council on Naturopathic Medical Education, and the single reference CNME is PROMO. There is even a Category:Naturopathic medical schools accredited by the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education, and some of the institutions listed seem very questionable (e.g. Bastyr University). I think somebody is using WP to give credibility to their business. Britishfinance (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updating my vote to Delete from Comment. Britishfinance (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Article author) - Lol at the tagging with both a PROMO and COI. I prefer that the topic go through AFD, rather than through PROD/CSD. And yes, the institutions listed may appear questionable...this is naturopathy...but that doesn't impact relevance or notability. The Council on Naturopathic Medical Education is the accreditation arm of the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges (the accredited schools that allow Naturopaths to get licensed and practice in certain states). Also, the log only shows the page was deleted once.GobsPint (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Lol is that the above comment was only your 48th edit in WP; hence the additional UDP concern. Britishfinance (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable list. Could be included at Naturopathy#North_America. Reywas92^Talk 19:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. Mccapra (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (Article author) - Merge into Naturopathy#North_America. GobsPint (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2019 (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. Withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 16:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre de Saintignon[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN; seems to be a failed candidate for a provincial position. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article says in 1998, 2004 and 2010 he was elected councilor the Regional Council of Nord-Pas-de-Calais, where he sits as First Vice-President, in charge of Economical Development. So what ? Elected three times, failed once: he deserves $3-1=2$ articles, doesn't he ? Pldx1 (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject of this article had a significant political career in a number of roles over an extended period of time. Mccapra (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Although some of the previous reasons for keeping are invalid, as Nord-Pas-de-Calais is a first-level subnational jurisdiction, there is enough there meet WP:POLITICIAN. The article is almost entirely about his failed candidacy. It appears I missed the successful sections. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2019 (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 09:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnu Vikram[edit]

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

All of the references in the external links section are either WP:NOTDIR-style entries, self-published, or not to do with Vikram. Appears to fail WP:FILMMAKER. SITH (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failed to show importance/notability. --Hiwilms (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*AGF I think it should not be deleted this person has done some work according to some large media which the author has cited. though it needs more reliable sources. MrZINE 10:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC) Editor indefinitely blocked as sockpuppet. Richard3120 (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where I'm not assuming good faith. SITH (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.filmibeat.com/celebs/vishnu-vikram/upcoming-movies.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsKvrathore (talk • contribs) 06:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC) Copied from talk --DannyS712 (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: ItsKvrathore (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Filmibeat is a long way from being an RS. Richard3120 (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced BLP, ELs are just a spammy link farm Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:41, 13 March 2019 (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 views in favour of keeping are more convincing here, with evidence provided after the last relist to back them up. Michig (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Legends: Bang Bang[edit]

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

Other than the developer being sued by Riot, it doesn't appear that there's anything about this game to meet WP:GNG - a cursory search indicates basically no coverage, much less significant coverage, from reliable sources. Horst.Burkhardt (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails GNG RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 15:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Hninthuzar (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions.Hninthuzar (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Hninthuzar (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hninthuzar (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another mobile MOBA in a big crowd. My WP:BEFORE search brought me WP:ROUTINE announcement on Fox Sports Asia, and reviews on unreliable websites like mmos.com or blogs. References in the article are absolutely horrible, including Reddit and Facebook. The rest is all about the lawsuit which is about Tencent and developers of this game. One of the clearest delete video game article candidates I have seen so far. In most of these, I would have been able to find at least one WP:VG/RS coverage or from a notable newspaper. As it stands, it fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove my delete vote because of the recent development. The game may become notable soon thanks to the ESports spotlight (the coverage it gets is pure WP:ROUTINE). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Mobile Legends is the first confirmed esports title for the 2019 SEA Games (see here FoxSport press) and A quick search on the WV:VG/RS search engine definitely brings up some results. Hninthuzar (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's many reliable sources such as ESPN 5 about the game. Arianator with love (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree per above, and that game included in Sea Game 2019."KoKoChitChit" (talk) 08:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's a recently developed game without reliable independent non-fansite coverage. It needs to do more than exist to meet WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you kidding? Fox Sports are non reliable source?? Now available many reliable sources from major media such as Business Mirror [5], Channel NewsAsia [6], The Esport Observer [7], Manila Bulletin [8], BusinessWorld [9], GMA News [10], TechBarrista [11]. These all are Fansite coverages?. Hninthuzar (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found recently press release, significant coverages from reliable major media, see here Business Mirror 1, Channel NewsAsia 2, The Esport Observer 3, Manila Bulletin 4, BusinessWorld 5, GMA News 6, TechBarrista 7... clearly satisfied GNG but some users given vote base on WP:IDONTLIKEIT!. Hninthuzar (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game have many reliable sources... agree pr above. ခင်မောင်မောင်လွင် (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A massively (if not the most) popular mobile game in Southeast Asia ([12][13]) that will be a medal event at the 2019 Southeast Asian Games. Notable eSports organisations like PSG Esports and Omega (esports team) have set up Mobile Legends squads. It does get coverage in Southeast Asian media, but to be fair, a lot of those cited above are WP:ROUTINE or press releases. Bennv3771 (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2019 (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. A reasonable case was made for notability, but it did not carry the day as consensus formed around the idea that the subject failed WP:DIRECTOR and did not meet the GNG. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anuram[edit]

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

Non notable director. Seems to have directed 2 movies, of which 1 seems barely notable. All the refs are about the movies, and none are about the person. Fails WP:GNG. (A lot of the editor's articles seems to be of questionable notability - WP:COI maybe) Jupitus Smart 15:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Director notability has always been a little unclear - it doesn't neatly fall into WP:DIRECTOR, but criterion 3 lines up with WP:NFILM criterion 1. In effect, any film that demonstrates its notability via multiple reviews also satisfies the requirements for director notability. Dum (2016 film) obviously meets this, as does the non-article film Kalyanism, using the references (review 1 & review 2). Either would technically be enough, and I believe between the two notability id demonstrated. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DIRECTOR states "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work". Simply being reviewed does not qualify a film as "significant or well-known". Clarityfiend (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4c would also be a viable variant under that Nosebagbear (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Does not clearly violate notability guidelines, but the director isn't particularly significant either. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Clarityfiend. Fails WP:DIRECTOR. Also, IndiaGlitz and NowRunning are not RS. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED (which makes the Nosebagbear's argument flawed). I don't see how he meets WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources of the subject himself. Instead the article relies on Kalyanism and Dum for references, where he is either present as a passing mention or not at all. Nothing in my searches either. It is simply WP:TOOSOON at this point. He may easily become notable at some point, but not now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2019 (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. It seems that absent signs of meeting GNG, "deputy ambassador" isn't enough ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shani Calyaneratne Karunaratne[edit]

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

If ambassadors are not considered inherently notable then deputy ambassadors certainly aren't. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO and no significant coverage to justify WP:GNG. Obi2canibe (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 14:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 14:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 14:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hninthuzar (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A deputy, particularly in an important posting such as China, could be notable. However reviewing the sources available here - seems she got a reward recently from the Chinese gvmt ("Silk Road Super Ambassador") and that other than that it is mostly various events she attended and the like - doesn't rise to SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ambassador (to other nations) is include in high rank gov position, as a deputy are also! which meet WP:NPOL. In my country Myanmar, Ambassador to nations (positions) are high level gov. But not sure in Sri Lanka. Thanks. Hninthuzar (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete international ambasadors do not meet the Npol critiera, we have deleted many articles on ambassadors. This is even more true fordeputy ambassadors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT, simply being an ambassador for a country, or in this case a deputy ambassador, does not confer automatic notability. Lacks significant or in depth coverage and therefore fails WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is the first time a Sri Lankan at any diplomat level abled to reach Super Ambassador level under the chinese flagship Belt & Road Initiative. ~Love | Peace | Care without any differences.. 04:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment, the award is a non-notable award and the references provided don't make any mention that she was the 'first', as asserted above. Her achievements in being presented with this award are not particularly notable. There also many in Sri Lanka who consider that the Belt and Road Initiative is a form of Chinese neocolonialism, particularly their practice of debt-trap diplomacy relating to the construction and operation of the Magampura Mahinda Rajapaksa Port.

Comment Wikipedia is not a place for political activism. This is a place to keep records which are historically accurate. As a Sri Lankan, I fully understand your anti China point of view. However, under the Belt and Road Initiative, this is a notable award and I will provide where it says that this is first this sort of award given out. ~Love | Peace | Care without any differences.. 14:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirvanatoday (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is the first time a Sri Lankan at any diplomat level abled to reach Super Ambassador level under the chinese flagship Belt & Road Initiative. This achievement is either positive or negative in the geopolitical arena has recognized her above the Sri Lankan Ambassador to China. As an editor, I'm keeping a record of subjects that I find important to Sri Lanka. Further, as I said, I will be adding detailed more information about her 33 years of service as a public officer. NirvanaToday^t@lk 03:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: Nirvanatoday (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

Comment, Nirvanatoday has previously submitted a Keep vote under the signature ~Love | Peace | Care without any differences... Dan arndt (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person in question received national honors at the International Women's Day national event in Sri Lanka for her achievements in diplomatic arena. I updated reference to that. – NirvanaToday^t@lk 01:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: Nirvanatoday (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

Comment neither reference provided specifically mentions Karunaratne as either an attendee or receiving an award. Noting that Nirvanatoday makes a general statement that it was a ‘national honour‘ without stating what the honour actually was. Also Nirvanatoday continues to cast multiple votes contrary to WP policies. Dan arndt (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'm not aware of the policy of voting. Since it is a relist, I thought people should vote again. Please do advise me on a link regarding the WP policy of the voting. If you check the 2 links, the President of Sri Lanka presents the award to the lady in the picture you can cross reference the feature image verse the profile picture of the article. I'm trying to take this article out of the deletion queue to ease my editing process. Also try to learn what how you handle these sort of discussions on women's achievements in smaller developing countries. – NirvanaToday^t@lk 03:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by providing multiple Keep votes you are giving the impression that you are attempting to vote stack the discussion. Simply indicate once what your view is (i.e. Keep or Delete) and then if you believe that you have further information that supports your initial view then provide that as an additional comment not as an additional Keep vote. In respect to the references provided what you are doing is bordering on original research, that is drawing a conclusion from the material which is not stated in the source material. You are asking editors to undertake a synthesis from that source material. Based on the images that you have subsequently provided it would appear that the award is not a national honour as you have stated but simply a recognition of her achievement as 'Silk Road Ambassador' (a non-notable award). Dan arndt (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication that she meets either WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Huon (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2019 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rajkumar Thakuriya[edit]

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

Other than pr puff pieces, no in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:FILMMAKER Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:29, 10 March 2019 (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 09:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Fiennes[edit]

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

I couldn't find sources or information to show she meets WP:BIOor WP:GNG. Information came up for Elizabeth Clinton, Countess of Lincoln (sometimes called Elizabeth Fiennes de Clinton) and for Elizabeth Fiennes nee Blount, mistress of Henry VIII usually referred to as Elizabeth Blount, but not this woman. I think it should be deleted, then made a dab to the two women mentioned above, and a link to *Elizabeth Fiennes, wife of John Clinton, 6th Baron Clinton. Boleyn (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom's analysis. In my BEFORE I came up with court ladies Elizabeth Clinton, Countess of Lincoln and Elizabeth Blount (both also known by this name) - but very little on this Fiennes - whom I don't see passing WP:GNG. The present entry is a WP:NOTGENEALOGY fail - it consists of nothing much at all - year of birth, father, marriage, and possible child - on the subject itself. The rest of the entry discusses her ancestors and speculative (as it is uncertain she is the mother) analysis of her progeny (concluding she may have been the great-grandmother of Edward Clinton, 1st Earl of Lincoln). Sourcing to Burke's Peerage and tudorplace.com.ar is a tad dodgy. Icewhiz (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find no sources at all about her except genealogical publications (in which I include the Baronetages and Peerages of England). All that is certain is the date of her marriage and her father's and husband's names - even her date of birth seems uncertain. Even adding a link to her husband's WP article on a dab page seems unnecessary to me. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing in the article to suggest that she was independently notable. Dunarc (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I see nothing notable in the article. Possibly merge to her husband. I noted two misspellings: Maxstoke (Castle) and Tredegar (house near Newport), the latter perhaps reproducing an archaic spelling. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If something is merged to the husband (which already mentions her and most of what isn't genealogical speculation - so I don't see much to merge here) - this page should still be a DAB for Elizabeth Clinton, Countess of Lincoln and Elizabeth Blount who are both known under this name (more than this individual, who possibly could also be in the DAB (to the husband).Icewhiz (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There’s no evidence that the subject of this article is covered in enough detail in reliable sources to warrant a stand-alone article. It may be that it is appropriate to merge/redirect/dab this page rather than straight delete but I’m not aware enough of all the details to know whether that is appropriate. Eldumpo (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm skeptical Fiennes is encyclopedic, given a lack of biographical detail known about her life. Also, there seems to be enough uncertainty and inconsistency in what is known of her story that OR may be required to improve the article to encyclopedic status. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:10, 14 March 2019 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gil_Lavi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE, this fact has not changed since the last deletion even though the page was republished. Brianvan (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt He's a commercial photographer; there does not seem to be more to the story than that. When I search all I can find are lousy sources, and there aren't that many overall. The available sourcing is quite weak. I removed four non-RS sources from the article, ranging from Youtube to personal blogs to an item he himself had published.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Libby norman, who may well have retired but who turned this into an article (and did a lot of other work on it). -- Hoary (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 07:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asset Liquidation Marketing Integration Within Asset Management Framework[edit]

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

Two sources provided are dead and IAbot can’t find them. I thought at first there were multiple other sources from Google books but all of these seem to be directory-type books created by compiling Wikipedia articles rather than substantive texts that describe the topic independently and meaningfully. I don’t think there’s any evidence of notability. Mccapra (talk) 06:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Outside of my industry, but I think wp:NOTNEO /NOTDICTIONARY as well as the GNG would cover us here, pending sources being found. It is fairly difficult to find sources on the internet, due to the size and commonality of the phrase. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not able to find a single reference in my searches, does not meet WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I would also say it fails the verifiability at WP:V since nothing in the article, not even it's existence, can be sourced. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Dimensional Shift in Intelligence - An Expository Approach[edit]

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

As the text of the article makes clear and early versions of this article state explicitly, this is a student essay, not an encyclopedia article. The evolution of human intelligence is an encyclopedic topic, but one that we already have an article on, so this is also an unwarranted content fork (or would be if it had taken some information from that article rather than just making it up through original research). My earlier prod was removed by the sole editor of this article, an editor whose only contributions have been to this article (how is that even possible?) with the only explanation being "editing headings and sections". —David Eppstein (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In full agreement with David on this one. This is an essay representing an individual's take on a fairly complex subject (which adds WP:UNDUE concerns) and not an actual encyclopedia article. Pichpich (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I considered a merge with J. P. Guilford as this article seems to be about that person's theories. However this contains only uncritical commentary and no third-party sources on Guilford or his work.--Pontificalibus 08:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems surplus to requirements, and going nowhere needed. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like your run-of-the-mill student essay. Not encyclopedic. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2019 (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 09:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Kinyon[edit]

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

Actor with little notability. Has only been in one notable film and that is it. (Another old article that has been around forever) Wgolf (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability criteria in WP:ENT. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there isn't any good coverage online, it seems. MidwestSalamander (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2019 (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 for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Luntley[edit]

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

This is borderline, but I can't see where he passes WP:ACADEMIC. He has a couple of books which have been cited about 100 times over the last decade or two, but I don't think that passes the threshold of notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 14:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 14:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 14:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 14:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking over the stubs on the books he has written, there might well be enough reviews to qualify him for WP:AUTHOR. My guess is that philosophy is one of those fields where citation counts aren't really helpful for evaluating WP:PROF#C1, one way or the other. XOR'easter (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Citations decent for applied philosophy. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:NAUTHOR, apart from anything else. Four of his books have Wikipedia articles, and each article includes references to at least two reviews. In addition, although the book Reason, Truth and Self does not have a WP article, I have found reviews of it in International Studies in the Philosophy of Science (July 1996, Vol. 10 Issue: Number 2 p173-179), and International Journal of Philosophical Studies (October 1997, Vol. 5 Issue: Number 3 p449-491). RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You do realize that all 4 of those WP articles on his books have been recently created, all by the same editor? All four of which are virtually copy and paste of each other, ending with "...along with being widely cited in its field." Looking on Google Scholar, he doesn't have a profile. Wittgenstein: Opening Investigations was cited by a whopping 9; Wittgenstein: Meaning and Judgement did get quoted by an anemic 88; Contemporary Philosophy of Thought did get a whopping (yet still anemic 101, and The Meaning of Socialism I can't even find a real citation count on that. And having several books with minimal reviews zero of the 4 criteria of WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply WP:NAUTHOR does not require that an author's books are independently notable. #3 states "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of .... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." There are multiple independent reviews of his works, published in journals in his field, so within his field his works will be well-known. Whether or not the WP articles about the books are kept, the reviews can be added as references to this article.

With regards to WP:ACADEMIC, Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics states "For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases one can also look at how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries (this information is available in Worldcat) when evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied." Reason, truth, and self is held by 1276 libraries; Wittgenstein : opening investigations by 489 libraries; Wittgenstein Meaning and Judgement by 479; Language, logic & experience by 314; and The meaning of socialism by 231. I would say he definitely meets WP:ACADEMIC #C1, as well as WP:NAUTHOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with RebeccaGreen, as he meet WP:NAUTHOR. Hninthuzar (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:NAUTHOR criteria #3. There have been "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" of his "well-known work or collective body of work". You can view the individual Wikipedia articles for each of his books to see that each one has been reviewed by multiple academic journals. MarkZusab (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR as argued above. It might be best to merge the articles on the books into the article on Luntley himself, but that's a question for another day. XOR'easter (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2019 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Crenshaw[edit]

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

This article was created by an undisclosed paid editor and has been further expanded by his sockpuppets. I believe that this article needs to be examined to determine if it's worth keeping and/or if it needs to be adjusted significantly. only (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The problem in this page is not notability, it easily pass WP:GNG, it requires a clean-up added by the socks. It will be better to work on neutrality instead of discussing at WP:AFD, it is increasing workload for admins here which can be avoided. 157.37.243.101 (talk) 04:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 10 March 2019 (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) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 03:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gerardo Flores[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

All murderers aren't notable, in fact, most probably aren't and I can see no evidence that this case garnered anything more than brief local attention. Fails GNG, WP:NCRIME etc... Praxidicae (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all, it looks like his crime was covered in non-local sources (e.g. Fox News). This would still not be enough to establish notability if it received only routine coverage at the time of the crime/conviction, but I see evidence of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:LASTING effects. For example, it's cited as a precedent in this 2013 news story. It's used as an example in this 2009 HuffPost article. It's given as a case study in this scholarly book. Also a Google Scholar search turns up several mentions in papers, though admittedly not highly-cited ones. The article needs a lot of work though. Colin M (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep also read this. Orientls (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned in multiple notable media sources. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2019 (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 nomination withdrawn —Kusma (t·c) 10:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Birgitta Tolksdorf[edit]

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

~~Actress with little notability who has only been in one role on a soap opera. Can't tell how notable she is, but her name isn't even on the page for the show. Wgolf (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn' Wgolf (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a fair amount of coverage about her in newspapers of the time. She was also in some theatre performances, so may meet WP:NACTOR - or perhaps WP:GNG. I will add some sources to the article. (She also changed her name to Gittanna Tolksdorf in 1979.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn-Thanks for adding info on her. I'm withdrawing this (was having a hard time finding info on her earlier). Wgolf (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regardless of whether or not she meets WP:NACTOR, she appears to meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 03:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Healing School[edit]

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

Does not cite any reliable sources (only a few external links are used), fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG due to all claims of notability being unsourced. WP:BEFORE failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 20:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've rewritten the article and added sourcing. This school is not the easiest to search for because of its name, but as an outstanding school and a teaching school there's enough there to satisfy WP:ORGCRITE and therefore WP:NSCHOOL. Not an edge case by any means. (Article needs moving to current school name.) Tacyarg (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did notice that a religious institution has the name as well, probably was what tripped up my WP:BEFORE. Not withdrawing just yet, I want to make sure people agree the article is sufficient now. Kirbanzo^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 01:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Re sufficiency of article, I think AfD is for notability rather than whether the article is good enough? Tacyarg (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At worst it should be redirected to Healing, Lincolnshire#Community per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. There's no reason to delete this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NSCHOOL. Lorstaking (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Chuck Norris#Chun Kuk Do. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chun Kuk Do[edit]

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

May not be notable. Most references are written by primary sources Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Chuck Norris. I found a couple of articles in Black Belt ([14], [15]), and there are other book sources for which I can't tell how extensive the coverage is. --Michig (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Michig, I'm up for merging. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chuck Norris a non notable martial art. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to Chuck Norris#Chun Kuk Do No indication that this is a notable style or has significant independent coverage so I see no reason for an individual article. However, it does seem reasonable to redirect or merge it into the already existing section at founder Chuck Norris's article. Papaursa (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cork–Derry Gaelic football rivalry[edit]

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

There is no geographic proximity, these teams have only met once and the concept of a rivalry is not covered directly in RS. None of the criteria for a notable sporting rivalry is met. Fails WP:GNG. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT, WP:NEVENT, WP:OR or any other criteria that I can imagine applying to the subject. There is no independent sources which discuss the concept of a rivalry between these two sporting counties. Not least, per nom, that they have barely met a handful of times in competitive events in decades. Not to mind in the 130+ years since the founding of the GAA. The only notable meeting was in the 1993 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final. Which is pretty much all the article in question covers. Making it substantively redundant to the article which already covers that event. In short: delete. Guliolopez (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Guliolopez. How can two teams that have only met once in the GAA championship have a rivalry? There is no WP:RS discussing Cork-Derry as a notable rivalry in the Irish GAA? Surely this would diminsh the other valid GAA rivalry articles? Britishfinance (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems that someone has confused the word "rivalry" for "head-to-head record". There is no evidence of a rivalry here..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Niclas Fronda[edit]

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

Yet another oldie that has been around for a while. Anyway person with questionable notability. Page has been around since 2005 (!) and not much else to say for this, he does not seem to have any notable things he has done either. Wgolf (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is a stub that has not been improved in eons. You would think the subject would have gained notability by now.TH1980 (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a search for Swedish sources only confirms that he exists, not that he meets WP:CREATIVE much less WP:GNG. Baranga Film, about the person's company, is also clearly not notable - I have PROD tagged it. --bonadea contributions talk 09:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: although I created the article many years ago, given the evolving standards of notability and the fact that this is a woeful permastub, I support deletion. Rms125a@hotmail.com 16:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwiberri[edit]

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

Like Dushan Jugum explained in WP:PROD. The only reliable source mentioned are spam like by the way, they also claim to be the first self-service frozen yoghurt in New Zealand. Sheldybett (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nominator @Sheldybett: If you support deletion and agree with the PROD rationale, why did you remove the PROD tag? Bakazaka (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think Sheldybett thinks a PROD is a polite request for a an AfD. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

I admit that I had not considered that possibility. Bakazaka (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is promotional in tone and lacks sourcing.TH1980 (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.This reads like spam to me. I can find one mention online in a reliable source. They claim to be the first self-service frozen yoghurt in New Zealand, if that was a notable thing, then we would need to find some evidence of it. Not notable under ‘basic’ or ‘organisation’. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Delete So, this article was originally about a fro-yo chain based in California, one of many in the mid- to late-2000s (see e.g. this LA Times listing of fro-yo shops: [16]). The California Kiwiberri actually got RS coverage, in part because of its legal (and personal) drama with Pinkberry (see e.g. this New York Times article [17]). In 2013 the Wikipedia article on the California Kiwiberri was hijacked by an IP to promote a business in New Zealand (diff [18]). The NZ version doesn't pass WP:NCORP, and is obviously WP:PROMO. I doubt anyone wants to revert to the California version, even though that version might be notable. Basically no one has cared about either version for years. So, delete. Bakazaka (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2019 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unbreakable (Dareysteel album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The album fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. The album did not chart on any country's official chart and was not critically reviewed by any reliable publication. If User:Northamerica1000 doesn't want it redirected, it will need to be deleted. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 12:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 12:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 12:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 12:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The last AfD discussion here was closed as no consensus, not as redirect. The nominator herein redirected the article after the last AfD closed (diff), so I reverted that (diff). It's not a matter of what the nominator assumes I want at all, my reversion of the redirection was procedural, and proper. It's important to respect consensus after AfD discussions have concluded, rather than acting unilaterally against other user's opinions. Pinging Ad Orientem, the closer of the last AfD, in the event they may have something to add here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- The album meet WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Per Significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources. Rayoveto (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rayoveto: What criterion of WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM does this article meet, and what "reliable sources" are you referring to? You can't just say it meets Wikiepedia's notability requirements without justifying it. You need to justify your argument. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dareysteel, who appears to be just about notable, or if editors feel the search title isn't a viable one, delete. Fails WP:NALBUM – there aren't enough reliable sources to sustain an independent article for the album, because although there appear to be several sources from Nigerian newspapers and online websites, most of them don't appear to be "reliable" and "independent"... a comparison shows that the wording of the various newspaper articles is strikingly similar to each other, suggesting that they were fed a couple of press releases, and each newspaper has just altered a few words here and there and then published it. Richard3120 (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2019 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Holden[edit]

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

Another oldie (from 2006), now while the 3 films she has been in are notable (including one well known film-Jailhouse Rock), her role in them are not. Unless if there is more notability to be found, this might be a delete. Wgolf (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC) *Comment-changing this to keep and for this article to get better refs. Wgolf (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Part of the principal cast in three notable films, satisfies WP:NACTOR. ~~Also starred in Broadway productions.~~ See also [19]. --Michig (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see Jennifer Holden on Internet Broadway Database. Is there a source for her Broadway career? Also, even the article says there wasn't much other than Jailhouse Rock. --Closeapple (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting the requirements of WP:NBIO or its section WP:NACTOR, unless someone can find some more sources. A minor actress, who got to kiss Elvis in Jailhouse Rock, but isn't the leading lady: 4th below the title on the posters. Official website archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20080703232427/http://www.jenniferholden.topangaradio.com/ and User:Topangaradio created the article on 2006-03-02, back when Wikipedia notability standards were different. Some sources besides the 1987 L.A. Times article, but I don't think any of them are enough to get the subject to notability:
- https://web.archive.org/web/20070818002958/http://www.-----101.com/article.cfm/Elvis,%20the%20Guys%20&%20the%20Music/113489 "Jennifer Holden's Elvis Help Project": 2005 article and interview by June Moore on Suite101. 3 pages. The author and the subject had an indirect connection. (Also mentions that Topangaradio is owned by Holden's daughter.) Suite101 is on Wikipedia's URL blacklist, so change the URL so that ----- becomes "suite" if you care enough to look at it.
- archive of Jennifer Holden Interview on Elvis2001 (transcript), before 2004-08-24, with some IMDb detail mixed in.
- archive of the jenniferholden Yahoo Group, which it appears was run by Holden or someone associated.
--Closeapple (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I misread a source re. Broadway that was referring to a different actress. Still, the three film roles satisfy WP:NACTOR (she's listed third on the film posters for Gang War and Buchanan Rides Alone, after Charles Bronson and Kent Taylor, and Randolph Scott and Craig Stevens respectively, if you want to go by that sort of reasoning). --Michig (talk) 09:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets WP:NACTOR #1 "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Note that this does not say "starring" roles, it says "significant" roles, which she had. I will add more references. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I might cancel this one-she might be notable. Wgolf (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Actually I'm just going to cancel this one and say Keep Wgolf (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A participant has !voted delete above, so it is ineligible for withdrawal by the nominator (see WP:WDAFD). Bakazaka (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-ahhh didn't notice the delete right there! Wgolf (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was leaning keep before I got here and learned the NACTOR #1. It just looked right although I can't see behind some of the pay walls.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:32, 13 March 2019 (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 On the Up#Cast. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Hatch[edit]

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

Another long dormant article (this one has been around for 14 and a half years!!!) of a actress with questionable notability. Her claim to fame is on a show where it looks like she wasn't even one of the main stars, as well as having notable parents. She could turn into a redirect. But I can't quite find notability for now. Wgolf (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NACTRESS. Sheldybett (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to On the Up#Cast as it seems to be her only major role. --Michig (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to On the Up#Cast. I can't find evidence of any other roles, let alone other significant ones. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Yiddish words used in English. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 03:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yinglish[edit]

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

There are no legitimate sources that confirm that the subject of this page is a notable and unique phenomenon. It is common for nonnative speakers to insert words of their native language into their dialogue. We do not need a special article to tell people that Yiddish speakers do this as well. As is, the page only has one source, and is poorly written, acting more as a dictionary of English phrases adapted for Yiddish, than as an actuall encyclopedic page. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC) + 2 minor edits[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Yiddish, this should be... fairly obvious...Mosaicberry (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Yiddish words used in English and rename.
There exists news articles and books which are both about or make passing references to the variety. Yiddish words used in English references Yinglish numerous times and includes a complex, ordered list of words, some with etymologies, numerous references and a mention of a former ISO code. Both articles should be merged and named "Yinglish" if it isn't possible to give it an academically appropriate name. UaMaol (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this suggestion. A quick scholar.google.com search suggests that the word Yinglish does have some scholarly currency, but this merge sounds sensible. Alarichall (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. As per above. Lapablo (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manas Saikia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article previously was AFD with no vote it looks like. Anyway not sure how notable he is, it looks like a too soon as only one film and that film does not have a page! It was an award winner somewhere-but he didn't win or was nominated for it from what I can tell. Wgolf (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. WP:TOOSOON. --Hiwilms (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though his film may have won an award but there's no significant coverage on subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Lapablo (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2019 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marv Tuttle[edit]

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

Not notable, routine notice in professional magazine is the only 3rd party ref. Part of an apparent promotional campaign that includes Financial Planning Association and National Endowment for Financial Education DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 04:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 04:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2019 (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. Recommend WP:RM for further exploration of this issue; that venue will attract more people who are knowledgeable/interested in naming conventions, disambiguation, and the like. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Salam Stadium[edit]

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

There are only two stadiums known as "Al Salam Stadium". One located in Egypt and the other in Israel. However only the stadium in Egypt is known with that name; the other one in Israel is known as HaShalom Stadium and rarely refereed to as Al Salam Stadium. With that being said, I don't think a dab article is needed. I think that it should be deleted and the stadium in Egypt should be moved to Al Salam Stadium with a WP:HAT added on top of the article to avoid confusion with the other stadium in Israel. Redirecting it to the stadium in Egypt is also another option. Ben5218 (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Merge Al-Salam Stadium (Cairo) to this article + place hat note directing to Israeli stadium.~~Delete~~ - but disagree with nominator. The Umm al-Fahm is actually known quite widely as "Al Salam Stadium" - this is an almost 100% Arab town, the language spoken is Arabic, and there is quite a bit of Arabic driven coverage (and translation thereof - which renders into Al-Salam (or Peace if they ttranslate)). However, that being said - the Cairo stadium outpaces the Israeli one by one or two orders of magnitude. The Israeli stadium houses Hapoel Umm al-Fahm F.C. and Maccabi Umm al-Fahm F.C. which are far from top-tier clubs to say the least - particularly when compared to Al Ahly SC. The Israeli stadium also has a widely used alternative name (derived from the same word in Hebrew). Thus - deleting the DAB and having a hat note directing to the Israeli one is a good solution here - the Egyptian usage is by far the most common. Icewhiz (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Modified !vote to reverse merge per Shhhnotsoloud which seems more correct procedure wise (standing pat on rationale). Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on procedural grounds - this needs to go to WP:RM. Giant Snowman 10:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: "Merge" is a legitimate outcome: see my comment immediately below. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge by moving Al-Salam Stadium (Cairo) over the disambiguation page at the base name and placing a hatnote there to the only other use. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please note that the stadium in Cairo is known as Al Salam Stadium without a dash. If the outcome of this discussion is merging the article about stadium in Cairo with the dab page, then we should also rename it to exclude the dash. Ben5218 (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Salam, Al Salam, As-Salam, As-Salaam and other variations are all possible transliterations too - perhaps a number of redirects would be helpful. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think that more redirects are needed for this one. Maybe having Al-Salam as the only redirect is enough. Ben5218 (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Chesworth[edit]

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

There isn't enough coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, and I think that her filmography falls short of the WP:NACTOR guideline which stipulates that subjects should have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.. Likely just WP:TOOSOON, as the subject appears to have only been active in the entertainment industry for about two years. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. WP:TOOSOON applies. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed on WP:TOOSOON. I would suggest making this a stub page, but the sources just aren't notable enough. Contains only primary sources, blog reviews and IMDB. A search for more sources turns up little else. Betanote4 (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain why this page has been nominated for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkmbartley (talk • contribs) 22:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tkmbartley: As I wrote above, the article was nominated because it doesn't meet the standards of any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Guidelines which are specifically relevant to this subject are the general notability guideline (aka WP:GNG) and the subject-specific notability guideline for actors and entertainers (aka WP:NACTOR, and also part of the larger WP:NBIO. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Few mentions from GNEWS. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTRESS. At this point it is WP:TOOSOON. Lapablo (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2019 (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.