Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 5

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. Although there is consensus to delete, I'm taking a moment to note how happy I am to read the analysis and discussion of WP:NARTIST between EEng and Newimpartial -- I've seen many stupid arguments at AfD, and it's always refreshing to see actual policy-based discussion. That's the right thing to do at AfD, even if it doesn't result in substantive agreement between parties. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Long

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

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

Little or no independent coverage that I can see. EEng 02:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Relevant guidance is at WP:NARTIST. General Ization ^Talk 03:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry, meant to say I also checked NARTIST and see zero evidence any of its four points is satisfied. EEng 03:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, I think it would qualify under GNG. While most of the sources are primary and/or non-RS, the Pittsburgh-Gazette and Washington Post would be sufficient to satisfy notability in and of themselves, if not for the fact that the coverage is just not detailed or significant enough in either. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Gazette's "coverage" of the subject reads, in its entirety:

Amanda Long, a video artist from Carnegie Mellon University, created this part of the exhibit. "'Silly Faces' is a video mural," Ms. Long said. "The wall holds 96 videos [at a time] ... My hope is that everyone gets five seconds of stardom."

And the Washington Post:

Another exhibit, called “Strike a Pose,” lets children create self-portraits in the form of five-second videos. Twenty-five of the videos then appear in a square grid projected on a wall in this installation designed by New York-based artist Amanda Long. The activity gets kids to think broadly about portraiture, which can include moving and interactive images as well as traditional oil paintings, Kasemeyer says.

This isn't even close to GNG material. EEng 04:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be more or less exactly what I said. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'd misunderstood you. EEng 23:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I worked my way through the references in the article, they are all either self-published (apparently by the subject of the article) or just mentions in passing and none of which establish notability in general or meet WP:NARTIST in particular. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No convincing evidence is presented to support notability, and none of the criteria at NARTIST are met. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nick Thorne. I thought this [1] could be of some use but apparently it has problems too (thread at Amanda Long talk). Also, there´s an indication that the subject is annoyed and wants deletion ("I am going to delete it as soon as I can"):[2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no, this is a pity as she's evidently a serious artist doing something interesting, but as yet there are no decent independent sources to establish notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per WP:NARTIST; 1. the figure is not regarded as an important figure, nor is she widely cited by peers or successors. 2. The figure is known for originating a new concept, however, the significance of said concept is, as yet, null. 3. The figure is not known for creating a significant body of work that has been the primary subject of an independent notable work or multiple independent notable articles or reviews. 4. The figure's work is not a) a significant monument, b) has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, c) does not appear to have won significant critical attention, but, d) has been represented at at least one notable gallery or musuem; National Portrait Gallery (United States), however, this does not satisfy the criteria of is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums as it is not part of the permanent collection, afaict, nor does one notable gallery equal the prerequisite of several. In essence, there is potential for notability in the figure's career, however, they are not notable as of now. I don't feel the need to bother with GNG as the figure is even further removed from meeting any of those requirements then they are from the NARTIST one. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I consider National portrait gallery as sufficient, I'm not going to quibble on the criteria this way. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Move I just added a paragraph to the article about the history of one of the subject's works, the one on display at the National Portrait Gallery. It is also in two permanent collections, although the permanent collections do not belong to particularly notable galleries or museums (the Children's Museum of Pittsburgh and the Pittsburgh International Airport). I feel like this installation might be notable in its own right, although I'm entirely unfamiliar with what guideline would cover that. We could retool this article such that the primary topic is the "Silly Faces" / "Strike a Pose" installation, with the artist's "bio" (which is threadbare) and other works included as subsections. Snuge purveyor (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get that the two are "permanent"? Or is that the default assumption unless something says otherwise? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial may have answered this question below, but in this context "permanent" means that the venue owns the piece. The Children's Museum of Pittsburgh lists the installation as "For rent or sale", which means they must legally own it. For the airport to own the art inside it is my default assumption. Snuge purveyor (talk) 10:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability doesn't work by default assumptions. which means they must legally own it – huh? I've got a rental broker who offers my apartments for rent or sale, and she certainly doesn't own them; I do. The claims of notability on this page are held together with chewing gum and baling wire. EEng 10:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The artist's site [3] points out that Silly Faces is in the "permanent collections" of (named) children's museums in Pittsburgh, Connecticut, and Ohio. I understand that her site doesn't count for Notability, but can we at least take her as an authority on to whom she sells her work? The work in question has toured to Winnipeg, Canada for goodness' sake. I don't know why you keep insisting that it isn't notable. Newimpartial (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, I confess I don't work in curation, but I don't think museums typically act as brokers for the artists of their pieces. I feel like you're making very unlikely assumptions. Snuge purveyor (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per NARTIST 4 (b) and 4 (d). Newimpartial (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to the sources supporting (b) "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" or (d) "is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". EEng 23:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Portal was a substantial part of significant exhibition at the Socrates Sculpture park, and her work has been acquired for the permanent collections of the National Portrait Gallery and the Children's Museum of Pittsburgh. I understand that the Children's Museum would not normally be considered a 'notable gallery', but given the focus of her work, its prominence in the permanent collection of that Museum, and the touring installations of her work elsewhere in Pittsburgh and in other parts of the United States, I believe in this context it qualifies (in fact, as noted above, 'Silly Faces' quite possibly qualifies as a significant work in its own right, meeting WP:N and therefore qualifying Long under WP:NARTIST, bullet 3).

In the world of installation art for children, I am not sure that she has many rivals, TBH. Newimpartial (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What "significant exhibition" at Socrates Sculpture Park? From [4] it appears that it was on display, then removed; by this reasoning anything ever exhibited anywhere lends notability to the artist. The National Portrait Gallery or Children's Museum stuff does not appear to be permanent; if I'm wrong, point to sources. EEng 00:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I know I said I was done, but the comment immediately above expresses especially well that the nominator in this AfD does not have an appropriate understanding of what a 'permanent collection' means in the context of installation art. (Which is a perspective they express consistently in the rest of the discussion, especially the current BLUDGEONing.) By the nom's logic, it is highly likely that no installation art, and certainly a negligible amount of audiovisual installation art, would count towards WP:N 4 (d). Newimpartial (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, you're straying into WP:NPA territory here, you might be best advised to strike most of this comment, especially the sentence within the parentheses. Please confine your comments to the subject at hand rather than making comments about other editors. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nick, but I never worry about what someone with 1400 edits thinks of me. EEng 10:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Portal was part of the annual emerging artists' exhibition at the Socrates Sculpture Park; these exhibitions are curated and publicized and I don't see why they would not be significant. The Children's Museum installations, by all accounts, were acquired for its permanent collection; one of them has been in place for seven years and I have no idea on what basis it could be considered NOT to be "permanent". The National Portrait Gallery installation was acquired for a "long-term" children's exhibition, which I believe places the work in the Gallery's "permanent collection" regardless of how many years the installation stays in place. I believe the intent of "permanent" in NARTIST is to distinguish permanently owned works from touring exhibitions, not to require that a work remain on the gallery's walls in perpetuity in order to be Notable. Newimpartial (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources showing all this, please? EEng 00:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New York: [5] for the annual exhibition Portal was in

Pittsburgh: [6] which shows that the installation opened in 2010

Washington: [7]; [8] documents that the exhibition has no end date, and is clearly an example of strategic outreach to children.

All of this should have been part of your WP:BEFORE.

Based on your link, the exhibition is just some exhibition; what makes it "significant"? And "No end date" is nothing like "permanent collection". This is really straining. In any event, after all this fussing, the article's own sources continue to consist of one-to-three sentence mentions of the subject and her works; there's nothing even close to GNG, which in the end is all that counts. EEng 00:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is their annual exhibition, for which she was awarded their emerging artist fellowship. Why would their annual exhibition not be significant?

And I am really not sure what you think "permanent collection" means in the context of a museum, but when they buy a work outright or commission a work outright, my understanding is that by definition that places it in the "permanent collection" which is the contrary of guest exhibitions at a major gallery (which do not contribute to N).

Remember, Notability is a property of the subject, not the article; she is Notable regardless of the actual sourcing of the article. Which is what BEFORE is for. Newimpartial (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why would their annual exhibition not be significant? Because you're not showing us anything suggesting that it is significant. So far it's just some exhibition. It can't be that every artist that has a piece in just any exhibition at any sculpture park or gallery is notable.

when they buy a work outright or commission a work outright I don't see anything about any of these works being bought of commissioned.

Remember, Notability is a property of the subject, not the article Thanks for the primer on how notability works. the article has several people working hard to stuff every possible source into it, and at this point it's safe to assume that if GNG was going to be satisfied, it would be by now. If there are any more sources that you think would help, now would be the time to list them. EEng 01:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that an annual exhibition by a notable sculpture park that uses the work of its fellowship recipients would be significant. If the Socrates Sculpture Park isn't notable, why does en-wp have an article on it?

I also find your "every possible source" comment ironic, since the sourcing I have done for this little dialogue has overlapped only slightly with the sourcing of the article. Are you reading these sources at all? I feel like I am wasting my time.

As far as the commissioned work is concerned, the National Portrait Gallery paid $12,033 to her last fiscal year [9]. If you wouldn't call that a commission, what would you call it? It clearly paid her to install her creative work in the new children's extension. The Pittsburgh museum describes the work as "created for them by Amanda Long" [10] - are you under the impression she gave it to them for free, when she was paid for her installations in New York and Washington? That would be a rather peculiar assumption.

GNG is satisfied by NARTIST bullet 3, regarding "Silly Faces", and by NARTIST 4 b) and d), regarding Portal and her work owned by the National Portrait Gallery and the Pittsburgh Children's Museum. Sure, you may not agree, but I suggest that you drop the WP:BLUDGEON. I am also tired of providing sources for you for really obvious things (the museums acquired the works). Newimpartial (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, there are plenty of parks and galleries that are notable and have articles, but it can't be that every exhibit they put on is itself "significant" (whatever that means, exactly) because then, by your reasoning, every artist participating in every exhibit in every gallery with a WP article would, himself/herself, be notable. That just can't be. There has to be some dividing line between "significant" and not (e.g. coverage of that exhibit itself?).
• By "every possible source" I meant every source that might contribute to GNG. None of your sources do, because like all sources on this subject (in the article or listed here) they're never more than one-to-three-sentence vagaries.
• Your link for the $12,033 is indeed enlightening. It's for "PROJECT COORDINATOR FOR SEPTEMBER 2016 HSI/ICE WORKSHOP" – not purchase or commission of an artwork. Despite what you say, she may very well have given given or loaned her artwork without compensation. We just don't know. Ars gratia artis.
• GNG is satisfied by NARTIST: Topic area–specific notability guidelines don't "satisfy GNG" – that makes no sense. They're shortcuts to tentative conclusions. If, as here, there's no satisfaction of GNG, that's all that matters in the end. EEng 10:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you see; that is what happens when I am tired and BLUDGEONed: I make mistakes. That was the wrong Amanda Long; the Smithsonian deals with an LA-based curator by that name, who is a different (and irrelevant) person. That's to whom the invoice I cited applied, as either of us would have known after an elementary WP:BEFORE, which I did this morning.

It is absurd to suggest that the Smithsonian's Explore! Children's extension accepted free installation art from anybody, and I submit again that this reflects the nom's poor grasp of the world of professional installation art.

I am proposing that the major annual exhibition of a notable sculpture park (not some random park with an article) is significant; the nom's comment "by your reasoning, every artist participating in every exhibit in every gallery ... would ... be notable" is a complete straw man. I have always been talking about the major annual exhibition of the Socrates.

By the way, Long also contributed Swings to the 2011 Bring to Light festival [11], and also contributed to the LUMEN festival on Staten Island [12] - both being contributions to significant exhibitions, which are not even mentioned in the article. Coverage exists for both of these art festivals. Do we see a pattern, yet?

Finally, EEng, you are mixing up the GNG's requirement that reliable sources exist for the article (which they certainly do) with the requirement that the subject be Notable, which can be met either by the GNG general criteria or by the relevant SNG, in this case NARTIST. I have documented the statements I have made about the disposition of her work in permanent collections and have given numerous examples of work that meets NARTIST 4 (b), as well. Fine, you disagree, but could we at least drop the WP:BLUDGEON?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs)

• It is absurd to suggest that the Smithsonian's Explore! Children's extension accepted free installation art from anybody: Why is that absurd? The Smithsonian accepts donations and loans all the time.
• Your ideas about SNGs, GNG, and notability are completely confused. EEng 11:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm confused. From the GNG, first section "A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and

It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." Newimpartial (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You keep missing the word presumed. EEng 11:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. From further down the GNG: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."

So Notability ends up being a determination, following this presumption, made in a "more in-depth discussion" of their encyclopaedic suitability. Subjects for whom reliable sources exist, that are not WP:NOT, which can be written about without WP:UNDUE bias, and which (in relevant cases) meet subject-specific guidelines, ought to be included in Wikipedia - or, at least, ought not to be deleted once they exist. Newimpartial (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you have more experience you'll understand. EEng 11:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make any difference to the satisfaction of our SNG if the pieces in permanent collections were acquired for free? Snuge purveyor (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't look at me. Somewhere back in this joke of a debate, Newimpartial tried to demonstrate that some of these works had been "commissioned", or something. EEng 11:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a link from the Association of Children's Museums for Silly Faces [13] which shows how the interative video Silly Faces are sold or rented. Her name and price are listed 11 K-20 K. pussandboots —Preceding undated comment added 12:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC) — pussandboots (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic, according to EEng. Readers are invited to look into this for themselves.Newimpartial (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The artwork Silly Faces was included in SIGGRAPH ASIA 2011 - SA '11 SIGGRAPH Asia 2011 Art Gallery Article No. 2 [14] pussandboots — comment added 8:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)— pussandboots (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic, according to EEng. Readers are invited to look into this for themselves.Newimpartial (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, by all means click on pussandboots' edit history to view his/her ten (10!) edits total, all made immediately before commenting here; one also might want to check out Newimpartial's edit history to understand his/her unfamiliarity with standard practices such as applying {{spa}} tags to SPAs commenting at AfD. EEng 15:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The relevant policy being WP:SPA: "A user who appears to have an apparent focus on a narrow set of matters or purposes, creating a legitimate reason for users to question whether their editing and comments appear to be: neutral; reasonably free of promotion, advocacy and personal agendas; aware of project norms; not having improper uses of an account; and aimed at building an encyclopedia." In my view, this criterion is not met simply because the editor made only 10 previous edits. !Newimpartial (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  That's OK. When you yourself have more experience you'll understand; in the meantime the rest of us already do. EEng 15:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first of these is a paid for link (otherwise known as advertising) whilst the second is an article written by Ms Long and which shows a download history of only 3 downloads. Neither of these listings come anywhere remotely near establishing GNG. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nick Thorne - The Association of Children's Museum is not a ad it is network of professionals. The page was meant to show that Amanda Long is paid for her work which you all are debating. Why don't you actually do some research?

• Also you didn't read the WP article it does have more on the artist and links her to a pioneer in video Bill Viola: "Another exhibit, called “Strike a Pose,” lets children create self-portraits in the form of five-second videos. Twenty-five of the videos then appear in a square grid projected on a wall in this installation designed by New York-based artist Amanda Long. The activity gets kids to think broadly about portraiture, which can include moving and interactive images as well as traditional oil paintings, Kasemeyer says.“I think it ties in nicely to the rest of the museum — especially the Bill Viola exhibition up right now. He’s a video artist, and perhaps children will look differently at his work after making their own videos,” she says."
• You don't have the consesus to delete this Bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pussandboots (talk • contribs) 23:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC) — Pussandboots (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

pussandboots: The Association of Children's Museums link is indeed an ad, as evidenced by its "Search the classifieds" box and big red "POST AN AD" buttons. EEng 23:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete EEng makes a very good case for why GNG should prevail here. We have no sustained coverage in reliable sourcing to the level that we would expect for a BLP. The additional involvement of SPAs plus the self-published sourcing at the article also makes it likely that its creation was intended as promotionalism. Taken together, these two factors should move us to delete the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - wow, tensions are rising here. But there is simply not enough in-depth sourcing to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete She has had some exhibitions, but as various posters have said, that doesn't guarantee notability.No independant RS establishing this.I'm sure as her career progressess, she will get some so a case of WP:TOOSOON Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NARTIST failure, and the arguments in many of the delete comments above. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: whatever your interpretation of WP:NARTIST, WP:N is clear that WP:GNG supersedes all specific notability guidelines. DrStrauss talk 13:10, 14 July 2017 (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 Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solifugid (Dungeons & Dragons) for further reasoning. SoWhy 14:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kampfult

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

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above, unless third-party sources are forthcoming. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- not notable; there's nothing to merge as the content and the sources are all "in universe", such as Monster Manual II, a "rulebook published for different versions of the Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) fantasy roleplaying game". K.e.coffman (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. I'll note that K.e.coffman's opinion is not policy based, in that primary sources are perfectly acceptable to verify uncontroversial content; they just don't count towards notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per BOZ. Not notable by itself; looks like the link BOZ provided is the perfect place for this content. Cthomas3 (talk) 05:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per K.e.coffman. Nothing to merge. - TheMagnificentist 08:29, 13 July 2017 (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 Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Despite mentioned as a reason, there is no policy that says game material such as Monster Manual II are not sources at all. Anything written by the author of the game is a primary source, even if the material is used to play the game. The same applies to video game manuals, album booklets, DVD inlays etc. Those sources are not useful to establish notability but there has never been any consensus to discount them as sources completely. SoWhy 14:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Solifugid (Dungeons & Dragons)

Solifugid (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above, unless third-party sources are forthcoming. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- not notable; there's nothing to merge as the content and the sources are all "in universe", such as Monster Manual II, a "rulebook published for different versions of the Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) fantasy roleplaying game". K.e.coffman (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. I'll note that K.e.coffman's opinion is not policy based, in that primary sources are perfectly acceptable to verify uncontroversial content; they just don't count towards notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jclemens: Could you explain how my opinion is not policy based? "In universe" sources are game accessories, as I understand it. I may be wrong, but a "rulebook" looks to me to be a companion piece for the game, and is thus not a source to begin with. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per BOZ. This is identical to the previous listed article, and belongs on the same list that BOZ provided. Cthomas3 (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per K.e.coffman. Nothing to merge. - TheMagnificentist 10:58, 13 July 2017 (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 Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. SoWhy 14:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hound of ill omen

Hound of ill omen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above, unless third-party sources are forthcoming. Google Scholar throws up a passing mention, but it's in Dragon, so not independent. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- not notable; there's nothing to merge as the content and the sources are all "in universe", such as Fiend Folio, a "product published for successive editions of the fantasy role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons". K.e.coffman (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. I'll note that K.e.coffman's opinion is not policy based, in that primary sources are perfectly acceptable to verify uncontroversial content; they just don't count towards notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you explain how my opinion is not policy based? "In universe" sources are game accessories, as I understand it. I may be wrong, but these look to me to be companion pieces to the game, and are thus not sources to begin with. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per BOZ. This is identical to the two previous listed articles, and belongs on the same list that BOZ provided. Cthomas3 (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per K.e.coffman. Nothing to merge. - TheMagnificentist 10:58, 13 July 2017 (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 Blood on the Dance Floor (band). (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 08:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jayy Von Monroe

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

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

No evidence of independent notability, apart from the band's notability. JTtheOG (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect back to the BOTDF article (either way, not keep). Notability is not inherited and he has none on his own. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect. No evidence of wikipedia notability outside of the band Blood on the Dance Floor, which itself deserves a closer look as a possible AfD nomination owing to a lack of significant, independent sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2017 (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 Procedural close. No valid rationale for deletion offered. (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 17:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive Educational Program for Spine

Interactive Educational Program for Spine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

{{{text}}} Saramagnifi (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as G7. The only substantial editor has requested deletion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar pop (disambiguation)

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

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

Dab with 1 primary topic and zero valid other entries fails WP:TWODABS so should be deleted. (these classifications seem more dict defs). It could be converted in an SIA or dabconcept but then it needs sources. It could be covered in the PT. Ultimately it comes back to a dict def (so an alternative would be a soft redir to wikt). Widefox; talk 15:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator requested deletion - SNOW I've requested CSD G6, and G7 per WP:SNOW. Widefox; talk 17:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 5 July 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Boyce

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

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

Minimally sourced biography of a person whose only claim of notability is being a candidate in a future political party primary. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself -- if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he already cleared a notability standard for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the general election and become an actual officeholder to get a Wikipedia article for his political activities. There's no strong evidence of preexisting notability being shown here, however -- and for added bonus the article was created by "Chuckforsenate", but as always Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform for unelected candidates to post their own campaign brochures. No prejudice against recreation in November 2018 if he wins the seat, but nothing here gets him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Outside of notability for politician (which he currently fails to qualify for), he would need to show notability under another guideline. Unfortunately, I am unable to find coverage which does. There is nothing in-depth outside of him running for Senate which could be used to establish notability. If anything, we could redirect to United States Senate election in Delaware, 2018. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete far too soon to be notable. If he wins the primary, he might rise to the level of notability, and if he wins the election he will, but he has not yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion (G11). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TRUEBIL

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

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

No independent reliable sources on corporate notability. Run-of-the-mill car inspection company.

Article has been speedy-deleted twice. This nomination was removed by creator. Taking to AFD to resolve this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per G11 as pure corporate spam. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A WP:SPA article describing a start-up's business proposition. My searches are showing start-up funding announcements and passing mention but nothing beyond routine coverage with substance to show that this firm is notable, whether by WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2017 (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. SoWhy 13:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of paramedic practice

Journal of paramedic practice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator without reason given. None of the references added confer any notability (none really seem to be independent either). PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Appears to be a central text in terms of UK paramedic academia. Only other comparable journal is the online only British Paramedic Journal, which is very new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.193.66 (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Now if only we had some independent reliable sources substantiating that claim... --Randykitty (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:TOOSOON, no evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 13 July 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Edwards III

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

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

Non-notable person. The article claims that Edwards is a former player for the Dallas Cowboys, but there are no reliable sources to verify this claim. The article also serves as an ad for Edwards' "Franchapreneur" career. (Edwards presently works as a consultant helping others start up with franchising opportunities.) Available sources are not reliable. Even the nflplayerengagement.com site which touts Edwards' "Franchapreneur" business cannot verify which if any NFL team Edwards played for. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is no record at either nfl.com or pro-football-reference.com of him having played in the NFL. (This brief transaction notice indicates he was released by the Cowboys in August 2000, before the 2000 NFL season began.) Accordingly, he does not pass under WP:NGRIDIRON. Nor does he pass WP:NCOLLATH as he did not win any major awards as a college defensive back at Oklahoma State. Finally, he does not appear to have garnered significant coverage, based on a search of newspapers.com, to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note also that the article was created by a new single-purpose account @VIKTRE1: whose only activity has been creation of the Adam Edwards article. I am pinging that user so he/she can speak to any potential conflict and/or relationship with the subject of the article. Cbl62 (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable as a businessman or a football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it stands now, I cannot see passing WP:GNG from what is provided. There may be sources I cannot find... --Paul McDonald (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2017 (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 Anarchism in the United States#Anarchist People of Color. SoWhy 13:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist People of Color

Anarchist People of Color (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

My searches failed to turn up a single WP:RS. Other than our own article, all I can find are first-party sources such as Facebook, a collection of blogs, and some fringe websites. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect, per CZAR, below, seems reasonable to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to mention in Anarchism_in_the_United_States#Anarchist_People_of_Color as alternative to outright deletion. The article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources (?) or at least enough to build a full article, but the section on contemporary anti-racism in the American anarchist movement is a good place to build summary style. czar 18:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2017 (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 Mucormycosis. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Tatum

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

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

ONEEVENT permastub with no inline citations. Previous AfD was in 2012. pbp 14:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Mucormycosis and redirect - A quick search for additional references shows that this is a case of WP:1E --CutOffTies (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & redirect as suggested by CutOffTies. Also, I regret clicking on that link. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Clearly notable topic, but please do not create multiple AFDs without reviewing the previous AFDs. Doing so will be disruptive and might lead to a block, and therefore closing per WP:SKCRIT#2. (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Jauregui

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

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

The reason why I'm creating a third nomination for the article as you can see the only things the artist has done aside from being in the group Fifth Harmony were the following. Release a coming out letter to elected President Donald Trump supporters, receive a British LGBT award and collaborated with two artists Marian Hill and Halsey on their singles Back to Me and Strangers. As I mentioned before all of that stuff was mentioned in her member section and nothing has expanded. I was hoping users would come up with more notable information about her that surpasses her being in the group Fifth Harmony and nothing. Until, she either releases music on her own, debuts an album or leaves the group to pursue her solo adventures. The page should be reverted until further notice. Please discuss about it in the talk page. Welcometothenewmillennium 05:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT (2C) - making nominations of the same article with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion. I would close this but I'm "involved". - TheMagnificentist 13:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No one but the nominator argued for deletion and per WP:SKCRIT #1 is able to be speedily kept. (non-admin closure) -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 14:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yonatan Cohen

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

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

Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. - MrX 13:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Having played in the Israeli Premier League, he meets WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As above. Coverage is not necessary as notability is determined by participation in a professional sport El Pharao (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Clearly meets WP:NFOOTY having played in a league listed here WP:FPL. - Galatz^Talk 18:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article about a footballer who has played in a fully-pro league and, based on some hasty Google Translate work with Walla! and Haaretz websites, appears to be the subject of significant coverage in Hebrew-language sources. I added a few lines from one of these sources to the article. Jogurney (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - subject of article meets WP:NFOOTY. Also per Jogurney's point a quick search on bing and google yielded multiple Hebrew-language results, of course some should be taken with a grain of salt as "Cohen" is a common surname in Israel but still there is certainly more coverage of this individual than included in teh article. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2017 (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. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 13:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma 60mm f/2.8 DN Art

Sigma 60mm f/2.8 DN Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, but passes WP:MILL, and WP:ENN. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This should be kept on Wikipedia as it easily can achieve WP:GNG. There are numerous references available online including independent reviews and magazine appearances. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog of every product which is offered for sale. Two reviews are presented as references, but one of them, Digital Photography Review, is owned by Amazon and includes a click link to buy the lens at Amazon, so I discount it as pretty much a sales site. Most lenses and cameras which have been offered for sale in the last hundred years or so have had some reviews in photo magazines. Coincidentally, those same magazines which review camera products sell pages of advertising to the companies whose products they review. Therefore I discount their being "independent coverage" in some cases. Edison (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:TOOSOON, borderline WP:ADVERT. May perhaps merit a mention in a more general article about the product family. There are sites and magazines dedicated to such merchandise which will advertize every product, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It should cover pioneering devices and technology but not catalog everything. Think about what people will be looking for in an encyclopedia in 20 years from now; they will expect coverage of but the most notable products, those which pioneered innovations and influenced a generation. This will also result in complete articles which have much to say rather than many stubs. —PaleoNeonate - 15:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per argument given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. May elaborate further and more specifically, but the number of noms here is rather overwhelming and should probably have been bundled as the same argument applies to all. Samsara 13:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: A counter argument has been made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is appropriate to have an article about and easily notable. You have misunderstood the word independent. Being a separate, reliable publication IS independence. WP is not paper, and just because you don't like these, doesn't mean they don't belong. Pschemp (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pschemp: I have no idea what to call these sources, and "dependant" comes closest. Anyways, I still cant see why these devices are notable. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:57, 12 July 2017 (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. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 13:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm

Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, but passes WP:MILL, and WP:ENN. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is appropriate for Wikipedia as it easily can achieve WP:GNG. There are numerous references available online including independent reviews and magazine appearances. Examples from run of the mill includes identical looking houses, not things that are written about and have publications on them. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett: Kindly do not take evey word by editors, or wikipedia essays at its literal meaning. We are humans, and we should use logic. For your statements above: Wikipedia is not a catalog. Also, for "can achieve notability": WP:TOOSOON, and WP:CRYSTAL. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "Can achieve" means that the references are available right now to add. It is not that we have to wait for a year for people to write about it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett: okay, just one doubt: What is so notable about it that it should be included in an encyclopaedia? —usernamekiran(talk) 04:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is based on the number of references available. THere is substantial coverage.

@Graeme Bartlett: All the "coverage" comes from the websites that has a living based on the coverage of such devices. It is the job of these websites to cover all the devices. That makes the device fail WP:SIGCOV, and "independent sources". I doubt if you saw "what wikipedia is not". For your nature of wiki lawyering, and bureaucracy: kindly see #5 under WP:NOTCATALOGUE. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett: forgot to ping in previous comment. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog of every product which is offered for sale. One reference is provided, but it amounts to a mere advertisement, since it includes click links where you can buy the lens. Most lenses and cameras which have been offered for sale in the last hundred years or so have had some reviews in photo magazines. Coincidentally, those same magazines which reviewed camera products sold pages of advertising to the companies whose products they reviewed. Today these pricey gadgets all get a bit of coverage at sites which get revenue from sellers when readers click on the link. Therefore I discount their being "independent coverage." Edison (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge in Sony FE — WP:NOTDIRECTORY. May perhaps merit a mention in a more general article about the product family. There are sites and magazines dedicated to such merchandise which will advertize every product, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It should cover pioneering devices and technology but not catalog everything. Think about what people will be looking for in an encyclopedia in 20 years from now; they will expect coverage of but the most notable products, those which pioneered innovations and influenced a generation. This will also result in complete articles which have much to say rather than many stubs. —PaleoNeonate - 15:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per long-standing consensus. All photographic lenses from major manufacturers receive significant coverage in technical literature, including printed magazines and respected web publications. The printed material is sometimes more extensive and detailed, and because of the business models of such publications, usually not available free of charge on the web, at least not legally. The nomination of such stubs happens about once every two years or so; the articles are invariably improved and kept. Rather try to improve the articles than nominate them here. The 135mm Batis has coverage, including technical tests, e.g. here and here, and well-articulated editorials such as [18]. Print publications are much quicker at publishing reviews - due to extensive commercial pressure in that market, they usually do so within two months of the release, if not announcement, of a new lens. Here is an example of an announcement of a print review. In web publications, there is usually significant coverage by 12 months, although new detailed reviews may continue to appear for up to five years. It would therefore be unwise for us to limit our source review to web publications only, but they should not be ignored, either. Samsara 14:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, you'll probably get a lot more hits if you don't use the full product name:

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

(There is only one product called "Batis" with a 135mm focal length so far.) Samsara 14:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: @Samsara: Hi. I apologise for the flooding, it wasnt my intention. When I saw these multiple articles, I gave it a thorough thought before even the first nomination. I not only searched for the sources, but I read multiple policies that I was already familiar with. I based my nomination not on one particular policy, but it is based on the summary/rundown/essence of multiple policies/guidelines. For the consensus, it can change. Given the current circumstances, it should change (not this multiple AfDs situation).

Basically, all the policies boil down to one simple statement: "to establish the notability of the subject, the subject should have been discussed in multiple sources, which independant of the subject; these sources should reliable as well". Talking about the sources you described (not the sources you provided), none of them are independent of photography and/or cameras. The sources you provided include "e photo zine", "amateur photographer", "SLR lounge", and "foto magazin". These are subject dependant sources. I am not talking about the reliability of the sources, but it is the job of these sources to discuss about our subject (cameras, camera lenses, photography). They obviously cover almost every device manufactured in recent past. But I dont see why these devices are notable enough to have a stand-alone article in an encyclopaedia.

As mentioned in the first paragraph, I based the nomination on summary of multiple guidelines. We should use plain logic here instead of following policies/guidelines to the letter. If we dont do that, wikipedia will soon have an article for every mobile that was launched in recent past; effectively turning wikipedia in catalogue/shopping brochure. And wikipedia is not a catalogue. Firthermore, notability is not temporary, and it does not degrade over time. This set of articles also fails WP:SNOWFLAKE as the subjects do not have enough significance currently, and probably they will never have. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is appropriate to have an article about and easily notable. You have misunderstood the word independent. Being a separate, reliable publication IS independence. WP is not paper, and just because you don't like these, doesn't mean they don't belong. Pschemp (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pschemp: I am aware I use the term "dependant of subject" incorrectly, thats why I explain it first whenver I use the term in such context. I dont know whats the correct term that I am looking for. "Dependant of subject" is the closest one. Anyways, I still cant see why these devices are notable. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's compare to Intel CPUs for instance. The socket sizes and the architectures/cores usually have an article, the CPUs themselves are usually listed in stats tables in larger articles. These lense articles are mostly similar statistics which could also be a table inside mount (or perhaps even higher level) articles (i.e. in this case, Sony FE mount)... —PaleoNeonate - 12:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly suggest that you read at least an introductory text on optical design. The process is not at all comparable to "stats tables" for CPUs. In the range from wide angle to mild tele, each lens requires a completely different design in order to achieve the required optical characteristics - completely different from CPUs, where, once you have a basic design that works, you can scale that design in various ways, for instance multicore designs usually include the possibility of having a variable number of identical cores. By contrast, lens manufacturers almost never take a 50mm lens design and add a few teleconverter elements to make it, say, a 70mm lens, and you would be able to fully comprehend the many reasons why if you familiarised yourself with this subject. Equally, simple scaling is almost never an option because of the physics involved. Almost every interchangeable lens released (I'd guess about 90%) has a unique optical design - and that's before we get to other features such as focus motors! Samsara 16:25, 12 July 2017 (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. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 13:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma 30mm f/2.8 DN Art

Sigma 30mm f/2.8 DN Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, but passes WP:MILL, and WP:ENN. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are at least four independent reviews easily found online, including PCMag so this passes WP:GNG in contradiction to nomination. Lenses made by major manufactures are not run-of-the-mill but are written about individually. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog of every product which is offered for sale. Most lenses and cameras which have been offered for sale in the last hundred years or so have had some reviews in photo magazines. Coincidentally, those same magazines which reviewed camera products sold pages of advertising to the companies whose products they reviewed. Today these pricey gadgets all get a bit of coverage at sites which get revenue from sellers when readers click on the link as well as sites which may or may not qualify as "reliable sources" since any person can create such a review site. Therefore I discount their being "independent and reliable coverage." Edison (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — WP:NOTDIRECTORY, quickly discontinued product. May perhaps merit a mention in a more general article about the product family. There are sites and magazines dedicated to such merchandise which will advertize every product, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It should cover pioneering devices and technology but not catalog everything. Think about what people will be looking for in an encyclopedia in 20 years from now; they will expect coverage of but the most notable products, those which pioneered innovations and influenced a generation. This will also result in complete articles which have much to say rather than many stubs. —PaleoNeonate - 15:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per argument given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. May elaborate further and more specifically, but the number of noms here is rather overwhelming and should probably have been bundled as the same argument applies to all. Samsara 13:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: A counter argument has been made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is appropriate to have an article about and easily notable. You have misunderstood the word independent. Being a separate, reliable publication IS independence. WP is not paper, and just because you don't like these, doesn't mean they don't belong. Pschemp (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2017 (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. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 13:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sony E 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 OSS LE

Sony E 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 OSS LE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, but passes WP:MILL, and WP:ENN. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog of every product which is offered for sale. Most lenses and cameras which have been offered for sale in the last hundred years or so have had some reviews in photo magazines. Coincidentally, those same magazines which reviewed camera products sold pages of advertising to the companies whose products they reviewed. Today these pricey gadgets all get a bit of coverage at sites which get revenue from sellers when readers click on the link as well as sites which may or may not qualify as "reliable sources" since any person can create such a review site. The only reference, dpreview, is owned by Amazon and a mere click will allow you to purchase the lens at Amazon. Therefore I discount it being "independent and reliable coverage." Edison (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge in Sony E-mount — WP:NOTDIRECTORY. May perhaps merit a mention in a more general article about the product family. There are sites and magazines dedicated to such merchandise which will advertize every product, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It should cover pioneering devices and technology but not catalog everything. Think about what people will be looking for in an encyclopedia in 20 years from now; they will expect coverage of but the most notable products, those which pioneered innovations and influenced a generation. This will also result in complete articles which have much to say rather than many stubs. —PaleoNeonate - 15:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per argument given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. May elaborate further and more specifically, but the number of noms here is rather overwhelming and should probably have been bundled as the same argument applies to all. Samsara 13:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: A counter argument has been made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is appropriate to have an article about and easily notable. You have misunderstood the word independent. Being a separate, reliable publication IS independence. WP is not paper, and just because you don't like these, doesn't mean they don't belong. Pschemp (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2017 (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. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 13:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sony E PZ 18-110mm F4 G OSS

Sony E PZ 18-110mm F4 G OSS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, but passes WP:MILL, and WP:ENN. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are at least six independent reviews easily found online, so this passes WP:GNG in contradiction to nomination. Lenses made by major manufactures are not run-of-the-mill but are written about individually. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog of every product which is offered for sale. Most lenses and cameras which have been offered for sale in the last hundred years or so have had some reviews in photo magazines or websites. Coincidentally, those same magazines often received ad revenue from the makers of the products they reviewed and the websites which reviewed camera products typically had "click to buy" or a "shopping" tab, making it questionable whether they are "independent." Edison (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — WP:NOTDIRECTORY, says nothing other than stats, which probably belong somewhere else (i.e. a table in a larger article). May perhaps merit a mention in a more general article about the product family. There are sites and magazines dedicated to such merchandise which will advertize every product, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It should cover pioneering devices and technology but not catalog everything. Think about what people will be looking for in an encyclopedia in 20 years from now; they will expect coverage of but the most notable products, those which pioneered innovations and influenced a generation. This will also result in complete articles which have much to say rather than many stubs. —PaleoNeonate - 15:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per argument given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. May elaborate further and more specifically, but the number of noms here is rather overwhelming and should probably have been bundled as the same argument applies to all. Samsara 13:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: A counter argument has been made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is appropriate to have an article about and easily notable. You have misunderstood the word independent. Being a separate, reliable publication IS independence. WP is not paper, and just because you don't like these, doesn't mean they don't belong. Pschemp (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2017 (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. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 13:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sony E 18-50mm F4-5.6

Sony E 18-50mm F4-5.6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, but passes WP:MILL, and WP:ENN. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are at least four independent reviews easily found online, so this passes WP:GNG in contradiction to nomination. Lenses made by major manufactures are not run-of-the-mill but are written about individually. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog of every product which is offered for sale. Most lenses and cameras which have been offered for sale in the last hundred years or so have had several reviews in photo magazines or websites. The same magazines which reviewed camera products sold pages of advertising to the companies whose products they reviewed. Many of the present websites afford revenue-producing click-throughs so the reader can purchase the product. Even websites without "click to purchase" may not qualify as "reliable sources" since any person can create such a review site. Dpreview, is owned by Amazon and a mere click will allow you to purchase the lens at Amazon. Therefore I discount it being "independent and reliable coverage." Edison (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — WP:NOTDIRECTORY, was quickly discontinued. May perhaps merit a mention in a more general article about the product family. There are sites and magazines dedicated to such merchandise which will advertize every product, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It should cover pioneering devices and technology but not catalog everything. Think about what people will be looking for in an encyclopedia in 20 years from now; they will expect coverage of but the most notable products, those which pioneered innovations and influenced a generation. This will also result in complete articles which have much to say rather than many stubs. —PaleoNeonate - 15:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per argument given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. May elaborate further and more specifically, but the number of noms here is rather overwhelming and should probably have been bundled as the same argument applies to all. Samsara 13:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: A counter argument has been made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is appropriate to have an article about and easily notable. You have misunderstood the word independent. Being a separate, reliable publication IS independence. WP is not paper, and just because you don't like these, doesn't mean they don't belong. Pschemp (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2017 (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. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 13:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS

Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, but passes WP:MILL, and WP:ENN. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there are plenty of writings about this lens so that it passes WP:GNG. For example https://www.ephotozine.com/article/sony-e-18-55mm-f-3-5-5-6-oss-lens-review-24055 and also from dpreview and cameradecision. THere are not as many reviews as for some of the other lenses nominated for deletion in this batch, but it still has enough independent reliable significant amounts of writing on it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog of every product which is offered for sale. Most lenses and cameras which have been offered for sale in the last hundred years or so have had some reviews in photo magazines or websites. Coincidentally, those same magazines often received ad revenue from the makers of the products they reviewed and the websites which reviewed camera products typically had "click to buy" or a "shopping" tab, making it questionable whether they are "independent." Edison (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspapers have also traditionally accepted ads from a huge range of advertisers, but they're considered reliable sources, which makes the above a non-argument. Samsara 13:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — WP:NOTDIRECTORY. May perhaps merit a mention in a more general article about the product family. There are sites and magazines dedicated to such merchandise which will advertize every product, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It should cover pioneering devices and technology but not catalog everything. Think about what people will be looking for in an encyclopedia in 20 years from now; they will expect coverage of but the most notable products, those which pioneered innovations and influenced a generation. This will also result in complete articles which have much to say rather than many stubs. —PaleoNeonate - 15:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless this lens was somehow revolutionary, I favor delete as WP:NOTCATALOG, because this article merely replicates the online Sony catalog it was copied from. The same probably goes for the other items in List of Sony E-mount lenses. PS: I'm not a photographer, so the closing admin can take my !vote with a grain of salt if they prefer. Softlavender (talk) 12:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per argument given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. May elaborate further and more specifically, but the number of noms here is rather overwhelming and should probably have been bundled as the same argument applies to all. Samsara 13:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: A counter argument has been made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is appropriate to have an article about and easily notable. You have misunderstood the word independent. Being a separate, reliable publication IS independence. WP is not paper, and just because you don't like these, doesn't mean they don't belong. Pschemp (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2017 (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) Lourdes 01:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zeiss Batis Distagon T* 2.8/18mm

Zeiss Batis Distagon T* 2.8/18mm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, but passes WP:MILL, and WP:ENN. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A non toxic article. Creator has created many useful articles on photographic equipment. If we start interpreting notability to the letter of the law for harmless and informative articles and sending all camera articles of this kind to AfD we'll have an avalanche. Could do with better sourcing but I see no compelling reason to delete it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• keep or merge Surely at worst there is an auitable merge for this. In general, except for a few of the most important lenses, it would seem better to have an article on the series. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Our nominator has not done the WP:Before checks. There are quite a few references online, including independent reliable substantial ones that result in WP:GNG being met for this topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It not even a decent lens. scope_creep (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per argument given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. May elaborate further and more specifically, but the number of noms here is rather overwhelming and should probably have been bundled as the same argument applies to all. Samsara 13:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: A counter argument has been made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is appropriate to have an article about and easily notable. You have misunderstood the word independent. Being a separate, reliable publication IS independence. WP is not paper, and just because you don't like these, doesn't mean they don't belong. Pschemp (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2017 (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. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 13:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zeiss Loxia Distagon T* 2.8/21mm

Zeiss Loxia Distagon T* 2.8/21mm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, but passes WP:MILL, and WP:ENN. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep although the article is a stub with only one reference, there are other potential independent references such as https://phillipreeve.net/blog/rolling-review-zeiss-loxia-distagon-2-821mm-t/ and https://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Zeiss-Loxia-2.8-21-review-Compact-yet-outstanding-optical-performance that can prove notability. WP:GNG is achieved. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog of every product which is offered for sale. Most lenses and cameras which have been offered for sale in the last hundred years or so have had some reviews in photo magazines. Coincidentally, those same magazines which reviewed camera products sold pages of advertising to the companies whose products they reviewed. Today these pricey gadgets all get a bit of coverage at sites which get revenue from sellers when readers click on the link as well as sites which may or may not qualify as "reliable sources" since any person can create such a review site. In particular, dpreview is owned by Amazon and lets readers purchase the lens at Amazon with a mere click. Therefore I discount the sites in general as being "independent and reliable coverage." Edison (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:TOOSOON, borderline WP:ADVERT. May perhaps merit a mention in a more general article about the product family. There are sites and magazines dedicated to such merchandise which will advertize every product, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It should cover pioneering devices and technology but not catalog everything. Think about what people will be looking for in an encyclopedia in 20 years from now; they will expect coverage of but the most notable products, those which pioneered innovations and influenced a generation. This will also result in complete articles which have much to say rather than many stubs. —PaleoNeonate - 15:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per argument given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. May elaborate further and more specifically, but the number of noms here is rather overwhelming and should probably have been bundled as the same argument applies to all. Samsara 13:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: A counter argument has been made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is appropriate to have an article about and easily notable. You have misunderstood the word independent. Being a separate, reliable publication IS independence. WP is not paper, and just because you don't like these, doesn't mean they don't belong. Pschemp (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2017 (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. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 13:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS

Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, but passes WP:MILL, and WP:ENN. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are plenty of independent sources available online for this lens. It certainly passes WP:GNG. Just about every piece of photographic equipment from a major manufacturer will be reviewed. See for example http://briansmith.com/sony-a9-camera-fe-100-400mm-gm-lens-review/ https://www.pcmag.com/review/353275/sony-fe-100-400mm-f4-5-5-6-gm-oss http://www.thephoblographer.com/2017/04/27/first-impressions-sony-100-400mm-f4-5-5-6-gm-fe-sony-e-mount-full-frame/. I am suspecting that the nominator has not been through WP:Before. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog of every product which is offered for sale. Most lenses and cameras which have been offered for sale in the last hundred years or so have had some reviews in photo magazines or, in more recent years, websites. Coincidentally, those same magazines often received ad revenue from the makers of the products they reviewed and the websites which reviewed camera products typically had "click to buy" or a "shopping" tab, making it questionable whether they are "independent." Edison (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:TOOSOON, borderline WP:ADVERT. May perhaps merit a mention in a more general article about the product family. There are sites and magazines dedicated to such merchandise which will advertize every product, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It should cover pioneering devices and technology but not catalog everything. Think about what people will be looking for in an encyclopedia in 20 years from now; they will expect coverage of but the most notable products, those which pioneered innovations and influenced a generation. This will also result in complete articles which have much to say rather than many stubs. —PaleoNeonate - 15:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per argument given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. May elaborate further and more specifically, but the number of noms here is rather overwhelming and should probably have been bundled as the same argument applies to all. Samsara 13:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: A counter argument has been made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is appropriate to have an article about and easily notable. You have misunderstood the word independent. Being a separate, reliable publication IS independence. WP is not paper, and just because you don't like these, doesn't mean they don't belong. Pschemp (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2017 (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. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 13:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zeiss Touit Planar T* 1.8/32mm

Zeiss Touit Planar T* 1.8/32mm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, but passes WP:MILL, and WP:ENN. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog of every product which is offered for sale. Most lenses and cameras which have been offered for sale in the last hundred years or so have had some reviews in photo magazines or more recently on websites. Coincidentally, those same magazines often received ad revenue from the makers of the products they reviewed and the websites which reviewed camera products typically had "click to buy" or a "shopping" tab, making it questionable whether they are "independent." This article's only ref is owned by Amazon and encourages the reader to buy one at Amazon.Edison (talk) 02:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:TOOSOON, borderline WP:ADVERT. May perhaps merit a mention in a more general article about the product family. There are sites and magazines dedicated to such merchandise which will advertize every product, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It should cover pioneering devices and technology but not catalog everything. Think about what people will be looking for in an encyclopedia in 20 years from now; they will expect coverage of but the most notable products, those which pioneered innovations and influenced a generation. This will also result in complete articles which have much to say rather than many stubs. —PaleoNeonate - 15:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per argument given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. May elaborate further and more specifically, but the number of noms here is rather overwhelming and should probably have been bundled as the same argument applies to all. Samsara 13:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: A counter argument has been made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is appropriate to have an article about and easily notable. You have misunderstood the word independent. Being a separate, reliable publication IS independence. WP is not paper, and just because you don't like these, doesn't mean they don't belong. Pschemp (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2017 (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. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 12:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sony FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS

Sony FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, but passes WP:MILL, and WP:ENN. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following related articles have been nominated as well:

Zeiss Touit Planar T* 1.8/32mm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Zeiss Loxia Distagon T* 2.8/21mm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Zeiss Batis Distagon T* 2.8/18mm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sony E 18-50mm F4-5.6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sony E PZ 18-110mm F4 G OSS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sony E 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 OSS LE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sigma 30mm f/2.8 DN Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sigma 60mm f/2.8 DN Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete - This is really more appropriate for a camera wiki, instead of Wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 19:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is appropriate for Wikipedia as it easily can achieve WP:GNG. There are numerous references available online including independent reviews and magazine appearances. Being suitable for a camera wiki does not make it unsuitable for Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog of every product which is offered for sale. Most lenses and cameras which have been offered for sale in the last hundred years or so have had some reviews in photo magazines or more recently on websites. Coincidentally, those same magazines often received ad revenue from the makers of the products they reviewed and the websites which reviewed camera products typically had "click to buy" or a "shopping" tab, making it questionable whether they are "independent." Edison (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:TOOSOON, borderline WP:ADVERT. May perhaps merit a mention in a more general article about the product family. There are sites and magazines dedicated to such merchandise which will advertize every product, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It should cover pioneering devices and technology but not catalog everything. Think about what people will be looking for in an encyclopedia in 20 years from now; they will expect coverage of but the most notable products, those which pioneered innovations and influenced a generation. This will also result in complete articles which have much to say rather than many stubs. —PaleoNeonate - 15:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per argument given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. May elaborate further and more specifically, but the number of noms here is rather overwhelming and should probably have been bundled as the same argument applies to all. Samsara 13:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: A counter argument has been made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is appropriate to have an article about and easily notable. You have misunderstood the word independent. Being a separate, reliable publication IS independence. WP is not paper, and just because you don't like these, doesn't mean they don't belong. Pschemp (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryron Gracie

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

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

Non-notable martial artist, none of the content indicates any importance or independent acomplishemnts that would grant notability. Speedy deletion and PROD were declined because "there are sources", but none of those sources are reliable or independent. Podcasts, fansites and magazines by family members are not indicative of notability. ★Trekker (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nominator. This is part of a series of every Gracie and his dog. While the family and individual members are demonstrate-ably notable - notability is not inherited.PRehse (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as inadequately sourced. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG and no evidence he meets WP:MANOTE. Not every Gracie is notable. Papaursa (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anam Tanveer

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

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

fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:Actor. seems like she had minor roles in programmes. Saqib (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a collection of minor roles do not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Big Four (cricket)

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

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

No evidence that this term has made it into the wider cricketing consciousness, let alone the wider consciousness of life in general. Furthermore, this term does not exclusively refer to these four batsmen, and likely will be used to refer to other groups of players/teams in the future. In fact, only a month ago, an Australian cricket website used the term to refer to their national team's four main bowlers - Pattinson, Starc, Hazlewood and Cummins. The vagueness of this term makes it nonviable as an encyclopedic article. – PeeJay 11:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG as a cohesive subject. The only cited source refers to them as "fab four".- MrX 11:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is another source that refers to them as the "big four", but one source that simply uses the term obviously isn't enough. – PeeJay 11:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's a throw-away term created by the media to compare four like-for-like players, but there's no real lasting notability here. There could be, years from now, but that's guesswork. And I've also seen the four include AB de Villiers and not Smith, so there's already confusion for inclusion. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:58, 5 July 2017
• Keep There are a lot of evidences of this term being used into the cricketing world. Every cricket fan knows about this clique of Root, Smith, Kohli and Williamson. Every cricketer from Bob Willis to Rob Key, every broadcaster has acknowledged them. It's not a throw away term created by the media. Do you people even watch cricket? In the same manner, tennis' Big Four term was coined and now it's a full fledged acknowledged term. You people are the reason that there's no quality Wikipedia article about cricket. And no has ever included AB de Villiers in this clique, ever. Because he's senior to them by 5 years. These 4 started their careers around the same time. Read these references.[19][20]
  • No one is disputing that this is a term that is currently being used to describe this group of players, but I just googled 'big four cricket' and about half of the links on the front page were to articles about Australia's "big four" quick bowlers and the other half were about Smith, Kohli, Williamson and Root. Then on the second page there was a clip of Steve Smith talking about the Big Four, except he was talking about the Aussie bowlers, rather than the group that he himself is apparently part of. This term is clearly recentist (c.f. "articles created on flimsy, transient merits"), and there's no evidence we'll be talking about this group of players by such a name in years to come. Perhaps create this article after their careers are over. – PeeJay 12:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the two links you brought above, one calls them "fab" (not "big") and one calls them ... nothing at all. Wikipedia entries need to be verifiable - the definition of that is given in WP:V. Please take the time to read it, thank you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do whatever you people want, Big four term in tennis was used when Andy Murray had zero slams and still it was used first in the media and they stuck to it even tennis writers on wikipedia. Your regressive nature is too bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JokerDurden (talk • contribs) 13:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pending sources showing that this neologism is actually notable, as defined by WP:V. (And for full disclosure for our enthusiastic newbie, I'm a cricket nut, a longstanding member of WP:CRIC and will be at Lord's tomorrow.) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well mate, you are seniors here in this wikipedia world because I've started editing just a few weeks ago. But it doesn't make you all a better cricket historian than me and I'll also be at MCG for the Ashes.
    • No one's saying anyone's a better cricket historian than anyone else, but you just asked us if any of us actually watch cricket, which we all obviously do. I understand wanting to make an impact when you start editing by trying to fill gaps you see in the encyclopaedia, but this isn't a gap that needs filling yet. – PeeJay 13:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • <edit conflict>Indeed. I make no claims to being a cricket historian - I wasn't a very good ancient and medieval historian. Let's hope there's an Ashes series for you to watch. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I agree with PeeJay but people do talk about these four and Kohli is supervillain for Aussies ever since our last tour to India. And Dweller, everything will be resolved between players and board. Waiting for 5 (aus)-nil(eng) at the ashes. hahaha
      • You're right, people do talk about these four, but they've only started talking about them as a group fairly recently. What happens if one of them gets a career-ending injury tomorrow and never plays again? Would we still talk about them as a group in the same way? Until their careers are over, we can't say whether this group will have a lasting impact on the sport. – PeeJay 14:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I fail to see how an here-today-gone-tomorrow media hype is worthy of an article. It surely fails WP:NOT. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Needs to stand the test of time to see if it sticks as a neologism. Come back in five years and try it then. Johnlp (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – As most above: maybe if this is still being used in years to come, but it's just a tag with limited use at the moment, and even within that use, not significantly notable. Harrias ^talk 22:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above comments, it's too much of a recentism, and no evidence this will continue to be used in the future. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nomination. The notability cannot be established.--Chanaka L (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2017 (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) - TheMagnificentist 08:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Domenico Griminelli

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

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

Contested PROD. Based on the English incarnation of this article (which appears to be roughly identical to the Italian, going on length at least), this person simply doesn't pass GNG. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't know how WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC would apply to 17th century figures. He wrote a book in the mid 17th century which had several editions and is included in various collections including academic libraries[21], La matematica antica su CD-ROM[22], and the microfilm collection Goldsmiths-Kress library of economic literature[23]. He was a specialist in business mathematics rather than a pure mathematician. There's some mentions on Google Books but without full-text view (e.g. From Oikonomia to Political Economy: Constructing Economic Knowledge from the Renaissance to the Scientific Revolution by Germano Maifreda includes him in the index twice; there's a bit of info in this 19th C book[24]; something here[25][26]; etc). It needs someone with specialised research tools and archival access to research. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go as far as to say that if any of that were to be added to the article, it would surely pass some standard somewhere (I picked on GNG rather than the more specialised routes for precisely that reason). As it stands, he's "a bloke from Italy who studied maths", in essence. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well, it's nice of you to say that the article "would" pass GNG if any of that were ADDED to the article, but the comment reveals a mistaken view of how AfD works. If there EXIST sufficient sources to make the article notable, the article is in fact notable however bad its current state. Notability depends on the existence, somewhere in the world, of suitable sources, not on someone adding them to articles. If ColaPeninsula is correct about these links, and you agree they are reliable, then notability is proven and the AfD should be withdrawn and closed as Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:Yes and no. Simply waving your hand in the general direction of sources and saying "They are out there, someone can surely find them" doesn't confer notability on an article subject. Once they're added and the man in the street knows that they exist, then the issue is resolved. The reverse is anarchy. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's certainly true that once they're added there is no doubt for anyone. However, if they are out there the article is notable, a point I guess you have just about taken on board by now, for which I'm grateful, and per WP:BEFORE, you the nominator have the duty to search for them: it's plain you didn't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting powers of telepathy you have there. I can confirm that I did as much searching as I was capable of doing from the location I'm in with the database access etc that I have. Beyond the general sort of "handwaving" I outlined above, I couldn't find anything much. Thank heavens for those who have the access to sources such as those being added to the article. And for those who can see what editors on the other side of the world are doing, I suppose, too. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - it seems a shame to delete this as Griminelli was the author of an early book on commercial arithmetic (that's an Italian maths magazine entry). I've added a link to the Archive.org copy of the book, so the full text is available online. Just the age of the book makes it close to notable; if we can't keep the article then there should be a merge and redirect, maybe we can find a place in the History of mathematics, ideally a commercial section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hi, I'm a wikipedian in residence @ BEIC, a digital library where we are working, among other things, on creating and translating many articles about this kind of subject, i.e. authors of relevant works in their fields (for example mathematics of 15th century in Italy or history of bookkeeping). Even if the number of informations on many authors is often limited (because the are very ancient and because of the very specific field, like bookkeping), we think those authors are relevant for historical reasons and should have an article (in more languages). So I will expand every article, adding more sources. The problem is that BigHaz proposed not a single deletion but a mass deletion (of 20+ articles), and unfortunately I'm going to holidays; so I need more time to collect informations (at least a month, also WiRs goes to holidays once in a year...). I'm sad for a such event now in a 3-years-running GLAM project, as I think the thing should have been managed in a different and nicer way. --Marco Chemello (BEIC) (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marco Chemello (BEIC): Slapdash editing methods are to blame for this problem. I find you incompetent to your task. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is perhaps a little harsh, especially if there were many articles to be covered. This stub was not so much slapdash as very lightly cited. The proximate cause of having this at AfD is something else, the widespread belief that notability depends on citations in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not harsh enough, to my mind. Our Wikipedians-in-Residence are our connection to these institutions. They should know what our policies and guidelines are. Marco Chemello would do well to learn about en-wp before creating articles here, as I'd guess it-wp is his home wiki. Handing us a bullshit explanation like "we think those authors are relevant for historical reasons and should have an article" is unacceptable. Creating an unreferenced stub is unacceptable. Marco is not in his position to advertise for his institution. I am all for wp connectivity to institutes of high learning. I've spent time as a campus ambassador and visiting scholar, which is why I'm so disappointed by this. Marco complains "the thing should have been managed in a different and nicer way" and I think he owes us an apology. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marco Chemello (BEIC) Take no notice of the eccentric and unrepresentative views above and continue your good work. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• Yes, I was called "stupid" by Troutman for disagreeing with him in a policy argument at an Afd which he roundly lost. He seems to resort to ad hominem insults as a matter of course. Ignore him. Troutman is the one who owes an apology, though I wouldn't hold your breath. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please give a link for future reference. I have noticed similar behavior of this nature by the same editor that appears to breach WP:Civil. He admits to have been a paid editor for a paid editing organization, since banned from Wikipedia.[27] I have put a note on his talk page, which page is worth taking a look at to assess the standards of Civility that he practises. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep. I think anyone from this time for whom we have nontrivial documentation is probably notable. Google book search finds in snippet view Historia del derecho de la navegación I (Peláez 1994) "La utilísima publicación de Domenico Griminelli sobre aritmética mercantil, sobre compañías, cambios, cotizaciones de plazas, etc., salida de la imprenta en 1656, no mereció ser recogida y comentada por la literatura jurídica pancatalana...", and Scuola e insegnamento: atti del XXXV convegno di Studi maceratesi (2001) "Nella novissima prattica d'aritmetica mercantile (in Roma, per il successore al Mascardi, 1670), di Domenico Griminelli sacerdote di Correggio, oltre ai soliti argomenti, troviamo un breve capitolo dedicato ai giochi matematici, tra cui quello..." so there is ongoing continued interest in his works, enough I think to pass WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:V,. WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. One issue is David Eppstein's "non-trivial" vs WP:GNG's "in-depth". I added an entry in a bibliography of Itallian rationalist(?) literature which is a fairly long entry but not really about Griminelli. That said, there is in my opinion enough here that no original research is required to write the article and there is in my opinion enough that the individual is likely to be covered in more sources, perhaps offline. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't really intending "non-trivial" to be different from "in-depth". But we don't generally require a whole source to provide in-depth coverage; a paragraph within a larger source can sometimes be considered "in-depth". —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Significant contributor to early applications of arithmetic. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• DeleteKeep we have more than enough sources to show notability, way more than on many footballers who have their articles kept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC) p.s. I meant to say Keep, I am not sure why I wrote delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete then? Editor has been banned [28] from creating new AfDs, but is allowed to contribute to those not created by him. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was not banned from creating new AfDs, that is a mischaracterization of the outcome. I was restricted from creating more than 1 in any 24-hour period, but I am allowed to create 1 every 24 hours, so that is not the same as a ban. However as I said.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly notable from the available sources. I too am concerned about Johnpacklambert's !vote given his rationale, but it's possible he just got mixed up and put down the wrong thing. He's had three days to respond, but apparently nobody pinged him so I just did. If he still doesn't respond, we may need to take this to WP:ANI given his history. Smartyllama (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Threatening an ANI becuase someone voted delete is pretty extreme. Especially when no other exitors have voted delete. This is the antithesis of assuming good faith.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment People are way to harsh in attacking others in AfD, and too often engage in ad hominen attacks where they try to disparge others ideas because of their statements. The root cause of the restrictions on me is the over zealous nature of the protectors of the special privilages given to articles on athletes and the very divisive and not at all friendly methods used to enforce these policies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2017 (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. Hut 8.5 21:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trinidadian and Tobagonian Australians

Trinidadian and Tobagonian Australians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is about a very small group of people, not the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - in my opinion, this article is harmless. It's correctly sourced and well written, and concise. It's entirely possible that someone will search for this and this information won't exist in its present form anywhere else on the Internet. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM and WP:EVERYTHING are not reasons for keeping. LibStar (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG. No indication of this topic's importance or notability. The group is otherwise statistically insignificant. Cjhard (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• NeutralKeep per Richard Cavell. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 11:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Richardcavell and Darylgolden: there are plenty of topics that are harmless, but if they are not notable, then Wikipedia policy is not to have articles about them. I think that if this article is to survive, then we need to see evidence of notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: Changing my vote to neutral. No doubt "it's harmless" was a poor argument. However the information in this article is undoubtedly useful, and it should perhaps be merged elsewhere. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 11:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No question this is well outside notability - not within cooee of WP:GNG. Frickeg (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is zero evidence that this community of 2000 odd in a population of 24 million has achieved notable achievements. Individual achievements can be covered in person articles. LibStar (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is a non-notable census statistic. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shubham khandelwal

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

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

Non-notable writer. Reads like a resume-ad for his services. References do not appear to be independent or to establish notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 11:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable amateur journalist writing for non notable publications. Jupitus Smart 06:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable journalist fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG.--Elton-Rodrigues 15:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elton-Rodrigues (talk • contribs)
• Delete Not notable, definitely a case of too soon.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stolpersteine in Neratovice

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

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

A bit reluctant to bring this here, but I think this doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Stolpersteine as such is a notable subject, and list of which locations have stolpersteine, and how many, is also normal. But this, a list of all individual stolpersteine divided by location, becomes excessive detail and a case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL (the holocaust victims individually are in most cases not notable persons).

I've only listed this one page, if it ends in deletion I will start another AfD for the similar lists we have for these (some 30+ pages so far). Fram (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stolperstein lists are well established in Wikipedias all over Europe, as they describe the only transnational monument of Europe. Stolpersteine have been collocated in 22 countries and lists do exist already in at least seven languages: ca, cs, de, es, hu, it, ld. List in further languages are in preparation. The WikiProject Stolpersteine hat been founded in February 2017 and there was no objection from any side til now. On the contrary, several of the newly created lists have been adopted by the national WikiProjects, such as Belgium, Czech Republic and Germany. IMO there is no need to delete this list as it is part of the encyclopedic documentation (added later) of an international remembrance project.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every wiki decides independently which subjects they deem notable, and which are not. The problem is that "this list [...] is part of an international remembrance project.", which is WP:NOT what Wikipedia (or at least enwiki, which is what we are discussing here) is intended for. Fram (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it is well within the scope of the English Wikipedia to contain encyclopedic documentation of a notable international project. Creating a list of locations is no different from List of cemeteries in London, perhaps some individually may be notable, others not. It has never been a requirement for a stand-alone list (which is what this article is) to contain only notable entries, as long as the overall topic is notable. You're left questioning the notability of Stolpersteine, of which there is no doubt. --RexxS (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a list of the Stolpersteine in Neratovice. It is not a series of stand alone articles for individual people. I do not see that WP:MEMORIAL applies to such lists. In fact, Wikipedia features numerous lists of people who have received certain awards, but do not meet WP:BIO individually. For example, the consensus established at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Notability in Knight's Cross Holder Articles has it, that KC recipients who do not meet WP:SOLDIER #2-8 and who do not meet the GNG should be redirected to the respective lists. Some of these lists have been promoted to FA-status, not at least because of their comprehensiveness. If there are concerns that such lists are cases of WP:MEMORIAL, those concerns should be discussed at the proper boards of discussion instead of following what seems to amount to a piecemeal approach of individual AfDs. I might add that the Stolpersteine-project is supported by extensive research, often sponsored by official agencies. The database hosted by holocaust.cz, for example, is sponsored by the German embassy in the Czech Republic. So the main argument for deletion seems to be WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, which is not a valid argument. Maybe the article should be moved to List of Stolpersteine in Neratovice, though. --Assayer (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC) P.S. Since I just ran across the guideline, I may quote from WP:LISTN: The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable.--Assayer (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Neratovice. The subject of these stones in this particular town isn't notable. List them at the article about the town and then have a discussion about how UNDUE this coverage would be and delete, accordingly. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please consider WP:DETAIL: Wikipedia serves the users of macropædia, micropædia, and the concise version in the same encyclopedia. Summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic need not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs. Thus for readers who need a lot of details on one or more aspects of the topic full-sized separate subarticles such as this one can be warranted. Besides, Wikipedia is not constrained by the limitations of traditional encyclopedias, particularly size. --Assayer (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Which doesn't mean that we should list the details of 52,000 (and counting) generally non notable individuals over a long, long series of lists. Subarticles are warranted in cases where you would expect the information to be covered, but the amount of information is too much to have it all in one article (e.g. splitting of the discography of notable artists from the article on that artist). Subarticles are not an excuse to have masive amounts of information on non-notable subjects because the parent subject (in this case, Stolpersteine) is notable. Fram (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You are once again addressing the issue of notability which is different from the issue of details. As I said earlier, Wikipedia features lists of thousands of generally non notable individuals. Wikipedia articles and lists also feature details to a degree which appeals only to specialists. How do you know that the Stolpersteine is a case where such information as it is featured in those lists is not expected? Stolpersteine are basically plates in the public space featuring individual names and basic life dates. The whole idea behind the project is that people stumble upon the names of these individuals. If you want to learn more about these individuals you will find that their individual life stories have often been resarched and have received significant coverage in reliable sources. For example, through its Landeszentrale für politische Bildung the City of Hamburg has published a series of biographies for individuals commemorated by Stolpersteine in their individual boroughs and quarters. They have put together city tours stopping at various Stolpersteine to exemplify the history of Jewish and homosexual life in Hamburg through individual biographies. Since the Hamburg project noticed increased access to their international website, they have started to have these biographies translated into English, sponsored by the Hermann Reemtsma Foundation.--Assayer (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In my opinion, the arguments put forward by Assayer are valid, which is why I am clearly in favor for keep the article / liste . I would add that English is the only language that is understood by almost everyone. It would be counterproductive and not in the sense of our encyclopedia to remove such a list from English-language Wikipedia. -- Miraki (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We have detailed lists about many things, why not this? List of deaths at the Berlin Wall comes to mind. It doesn't matter if the victims are individually "notable", - their death in European history is. I like it broken up to a town, not a big list for a country, but I don't support merge to the town, as too much detail for the town. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The creator, Deming, has an article. It's quite normal for his more notable works to have an article. The works of hundreds if not thousands of other artists have their own works. Furthermore, whether or not the names are there in a list should be a non issue. Agree with Assayer.PumpkinSky talk 11:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge lead to Neratovice. The detail of the people listed does not belong in WP. The present article is being used as a forum for bios of people who were not notable: we cannot have articles on each of the several million people who died in Nazi concentration camps. There are presumably specialist websites for that. We have similarly been deleting articles on German soldiers who got medals. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not discussion about stand alone articles for millions of victims, but about victims commemorated by Stolpersteine. And if those people would have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, they would meet GNG regardless of their number. To my knowledge some articles of German soldiers who got medals but did not receive significant coverage in reliable sources have been merged into lists.--Assayer (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, topic appears adequate for a list article such as this. Montanabw^(talk) 22:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists #Appropriate topics for lists gives us good guidance on content of stand-alone lists: "Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy spelled out in What Wikipedia is not, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge." The nominator is entitled to their opinion along those lines, but I will disagree: a reading of WP:NOTDIRECTORY (the relevant section of WP:NOT) spells out seven classes of directories that Wikipedia is not: Lists of loosely associated topics; Genealogical entries; Yellow Pages; Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business; Sales catalogues; Non-encyclopedic cross-categorisations; and Simple listings without context information. There is no way that the list of Stolpersteine in Neratovice fits any of those groupings. In fact, it is clear from reading the amplifications given with each of those classes that NOTDIRECTORY excludes a very different sort of list from the one under debate. I would urge anyone uncertain about the place of this article in Wikipedia to read WP:NOTDIRECTORY and see for themselves that is not an applicable rationale for deletion here. --RexxS (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Interesting, harmless, well-sourced, and has a non-negative encyclopedic value. I can't say any of that about most of the articles I see in the New Pages Feed. Rentier (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick E. Craig

Patrick E. Craig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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