Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 20

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 19 April 21 April >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Nadada

Lauren Nadada (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)

Actress I'm trying to find anything for. She apparently has only one role (for a short film that does not even have a Wikipedia page) and nothing else. I can't find anything for her (not even a IMDB page at the very least, which shows for something), all I can find are wiki mirrors. Wgolf (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as am not finding any significant coverage in reliable sources or even unreliable sources. If good sources, perhaps in Persian, are found please ping me Atlantic306 (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one significant role is not enough to make an actress notable, especially in a case like this where it is not clear the film itself is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The person appears to be made up, or at least the information in the article is made up. Read through the single provided source. It is somebody's blog where they are posting a story in three parts. "In Deep" isn't a real film. It's a film in that story. A work of ficiton. -- Whpq (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-I am wondering if this is a hoax article as well and if we should submit this into the longest hoaxes on Wikipedia. Wgolf (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment-looks like the archive bot did restore the dead link, but it's still a dead link. Wgolf (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A debate about a debate - in which this discussions consensus is keep. The article has also been significantly updated since the nomination, so I encourage Bilorv to review the updated article. Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peterson–Žižek debate

Peterson–Žižek debate (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)

Debates are not typically something we consider notable on Wikipedia - e.g. we don't (as far as I can see) have any articles on specific Intelligence Squared debates or any similar kinds of things. Category:Debates reveals a few individual in-person debate events like Gadamer–Derrida debate or Cassirer–Heidegger debate, whose notability I'm not convinced of, but even accepting that, this is a different case. Unlike Derrida or Heidegger, Peterson and Žižek are not seminal scholars in their fields, merely popular figures (the philosophy equivalents of pop scientists, one could say). Peterson isn't even a professional political theorist or philosopher - instead his scholarly expertise is in psychology. The only thing that would convince me that this individual debate is notable would be an unusually large amount of media coverage but I don't believe that that's the case here, having looked at the references in the article and attempted to find additional sources (the best I could find was an article about memes, which is not any use). — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whilst wikipedia does not as a rule have articles on debates, this debate was strongly billed as the debate of our century. That it turned out to be a discussion of where the participants agreed rather than differed, and that both tended to the conclusion that mankind is heading towards apocalypse will no doubt result in much more discussion in RS and this article will provide a useful focus rather than disparate discussions in the protagonists' individual articles. Give the article some time. Poltair (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sources for "strongly billed as"? I'm not disputing that the debate was interesting but "will no doubt result in [more sources]" is WP:CRYSTAL. It needs to be notable now to be kept. We can move it to draft space if it's potentially notable one day. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 01:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 01:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is in fact considerable reliable source coverage of this debate and its importance in reliable sources, including sources that are not in the article now (or about memes). These include the Economist, the FEE, Jacobin, and the Chronicle of Higher Education. It is therefore clear that GNG is met here, especially given discussion of this event's (potential) significance (e.g. "the Peterson-Zizek encounter could be the most important public debate since Chomsky and Foucault nearly half a century ago. Indeed, it would be the natural sequel to Chomsky/Foucault." [1]). IntoThinAir (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that The Economist source is already in the article. Thanks for the other sources though. They are useful, but I'd note that the Foundation for Economic Education is a libertarian think-tank (so I don't really trust its judgement on what is "the most important public debate") and the Jacobin is a Marxist magazine. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter if a specific source is of this or that ideological perspectice if it is reliable.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the Economist was in the article, I have stricken it. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv Jacobin isn't strictly Marxist. It's a democratic socialist magazine founded by a sometimes Marxist. Not to get into small differences but the distinction is worth making. MainlyTwelve (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as previous editors said, also another report is from Now Toronto. As well, it is notable that a European national televison like Hrvatska Radiotelevizija ([2], [3]) is going to broadcast the debate these days, as well Croatian mainstream media has extensive pre- and post-reports on it (post-reports Jutarnji list, Index.hr). Perhaps even other mainstream medias throught the world reported on the debate.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unambiguously notable, even a cursory Google search reveals ongoing coverage from Russian, British, American, and Canadian outlets. There might not be a great deal of precedent for this sort of article, but that doesn't disqualify it from inclusion.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created the article because of the extensive discussion online for a very long time since it was announced and during the event itself, such as in that "Peterson" and "Zizek" were the top two trending things on Twitter a few days ago. The debate received more media attention since this talk page's creation, including the Guardian (which had "the debate of the century" as its headline), and RT.com. I'll add these to the page in the meantime.--Battle Salmon (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bilorv mentions that Wikipedia does not ordinarily include debates as articles unless they are notable and failed to mention the Vidal-Buckley debated. I suddenly decided to pull that one up because, I thought, certainly it exists, and it is the closest analogue I can think of to the Peterson–Žižek debate. Suddenly I was stunned: it simply doesn't exist! There's an entire award-winning documentary film about those debates and yet the article doesn't exist. The lack of existence of that article, however, is a failure on the part of Wikipedia, and not a failure of the subject's notability. And like those debates, this debate is also certainly notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. They are subjects which any reasonable person would think to look up on Wikipedia and be surprised they couldn't find them.Malan88 (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This has already been relisted twice and had no further discussion. There's no clear consensus and unfortunately this would be considered a disputed PROD, hence the closure as No Consensus. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saranya Bhagyaraj

Saranya Bhagyaraj (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)

Actress with little notability. She only seems to have done 2 films so far (I can't find any others that she has been in), as well as a not inherited issue. Wgolf (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 14:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. After being relisted twice there's still not as much discussion as I would like for a clear cut case, however, the consensus here is Keep even if they're not strictly policy based arguments... (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B chandrakala

B chandrakala (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)

Not notable person under wikipedia gidelines.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The original editor has posted many articles on other politicians written in the same style. I would appreciate if someone more familiar with India than I am look at them to see if they are wiki worthy. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is not well written, but even a cursory seach suggests she is well known. [4] --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, This article needs improve and attention, not deletion. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stirling University RFC

Stirling University RFC (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)

Reads like student humour, couldn't find a source indicating notability otherwise Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

while the United States’ college system is seen as the go-to route into the sporting world for budding young stars. In Britain, however, there has often been a suspicion of the role formal education can play in the world of football, while players who have not been snapped up by a professional club by their late teenage years are routinely written off. As such, university teams are widely viewed as an outlet for hobbyists, rather than a serious endeavour which could lead to a professional career.

Meters (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 2006 Maryland Comptroller election. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Janet S. Owens

Janet S. Owens (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)

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a former head of a county government and non-winning candidate for higher office. Neither of these represents an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just because she exists, but the article is not showing any reliable source coverage to demonstrate that she would get over WP:GNG for it: it is referenced entirely to raw primary source tables of election results, with not even one hit of media coverage about her shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2006 Maryland Comptroller election. Subject was the county executive of Anne Arundel County, Maryland for two terms and then ran unsuccessfully for Comptroller in 2006. As a proxy for non-local coverage, the New York Times has one mention of the subject involving the 2006 race and one mention of the subject in the aftermath of Hurricane Ernesto (2006). The community has not given the presumption of notability to county executives under WP:NPOL, and there does not appear to be much nationalized coverage for a local official to pass WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete county executives are not notabel for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG because it lacks any WP:SIGCOV of her or her time in office. The nominators WP:BEFORE search also turned up no media coverage of this woman at all. She is not notable and doesn't deserve an article just because she exists. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:SNOW delete. There's no benefit keeping this open for two more days given that the outcome is obvious. ‑ Iridescent 18:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-natural death

Non-natural death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · death Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a bucket list with a weird and incoherent mix of things which have caused human death. There's no coherence in its scope; in date ranges chosen; in geographic locales. There's no very good logic nor criteria for what should and should not be included. It's a mess and it will always be a mess. Tagishsimon (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • reasons the nomination itself fails - by Sederecarinae

    In WP:DEL-REASON, Of the 14 listed reasons in WP:DEL-REASON, the article doesn't fulfill any of the 14.

    WP:BEFORE (in WP:AFD) links to WP:DEL-REASON via the link anchor "valid grounds for deletion" ie, AFD describes deletion-reason (the list of 14 reasons) as being the "valid grounds"

    Sederecarinae (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • the nomination fails also on the grounds,

    Wikipedia:GDBN :

    Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case (links to criteria for speedy deletion), consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD.

    Investigate the possibility of rewriting the article yourself (or at least creating a stub on the topic and requesting expansion) instead of deleting it.

    First do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.

    The nominating editor didn't investigate the possibility of rewriting the article, or look for sources. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.

    Sederecarinae (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    1. it can't be a "bucket list" https://bucketlist.org/ because such a list is a list of things to do before one dies, not a list of causes of death. The article doesn't describe "List" of anything in the title; the article isn't intended to be a list at this time since I haven't determined the amount of possible source material available, there might be scope for discussion of the different causes, in addition to a listing of datum for years showing number of deaths.

      reasons why the reasons given by Tagashimon are unnacceptable, (including also reasons why the nomination is without sufficient reason) - by Sederecarinae

    2. "incoherent / no coherence" - is obviously not true, as the determination of subject is causes of death and all the contents fulfills the title
    3. "the date ranges chosen, in geographical locales" - you should simply wait for the article to develop, the criticism is premature, since the article hasn't existed for very much time, and I haven't been able to include full ranges due insufficient time to search for contents to include
    4. "no very good logic nor criteria for what should and should not be included" the criteria is human-cause as explained in the lead - you might think this isn't any criteria at all (as the article was redirected to the article about causes of death previously) the article redirected to at that time, contains information on the biological cause of death Cardiovascular diseases, Infectious diseases et cetera that are by medical definition (i.e. are within the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) critieria, and the range is rather large, contains 79 or 80 causes of death, although some of the criteria : war, poisoning, fire, road traffic accidents are included, they make-up only a small number of the approximately 79-80 causes, obviously the fact that the data is from 2002 only is something to do with the fact of the range being too great for the article to contain all the datum.Plus the article there shows " data from 2002 and is out of date", this article contains more updated information, and as I mentioned in the previous sentence, is of a more limited criteria (excluding diseases, and natural disasters, i.e. human-made) which gives this article more space to include detail for data for years
    5. "It's a mess and it will always be a mess." looks like political rhetoric, I think you just feel negatively in reaction to the subject matter and want the article to simply go away, if you were an authority on the subject, you would have asserted the truth of your statement "will always be a mess" at the initial challenge against the article, the whole concern with messiness is just a reiteration of the previous criticisms, which is the criticisms are based simply on the organisation of the article, but you fail to include any mention of the invalidity of the subject, if you doubt my abilities as an editor, why not collaborate, as it is a group effort to create the encyclopedia, as you are aware? Your addition of suggested deletion is less important than an effort to contribute to the article and create an encyclopedia, as is the purpose of wikipedia.
  • Sederecarinae (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

opinions of deletion by interested editors, and opinions against, made by Sederecarinae

  • Delete per nom. I suppose someone could create Unnatural causes of death (as an adjunct to Category:Causes of death), but this article is DOA, an agglomeration of stats for random years, ranging from war to one "meat-blender accident". Clarityfiend (talk) 07:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • DOA you state the reason is DOA because of agglomeration of stats for random years, ranging from war to one "meat-blender accident" which is a rather weak support for the implication DOA (dead on arrival) indicates the article has no value. The only actual reason in criticisms you've made (that the article shouldn't be given any life at all), is random. (DOA doesn't strictly state anything about the article other than, you don't like the article, it has no life ... but why the article is dead?, DOA simply expresses your preference, but who are you that your opinion is any more valid than thousands or millions of other people who would find the article something they would prefer to look at, that the article should be deleted at this early stage of development)

      random years the years aren't random, as I've indicated in 3)

      the other accidental deaths (i.e. "meat-blender accident") are included to indicate the existence of a range of low statistical occurrence types of death, with the intention of finding occurences for a more geographically larger area, and a more complete statistic for the types, in the future of the article for each type of death.

      The reason why I didn't title the article unnatural causes of death (or something similar) is because the identification of non-natural with humanity implies humans are non-natural - i.e the cause of death was road traffic accident, but a human was driving, nuclear device, but a human released the bomb from an aircraft. Unnatural death is true of Aircraft disasters as the cause of the passengers deaths is mechanical fault, or electric fault, or some other fault, I don't know exactly; a failure of the integrity of the craft as a result of human error, or material error, resulting in a flaw in the aircrafts integrity, plus the interaction of the flaw with the physical environment, during flight, causing the failure of the craft to remain airborne. Sederecarinae (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not a useful list and too much synthesis. Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- The content is a strange sampling of bits and pieces, and does not seem to serve any encyclopedic purpose. There is no obvious place to merge any of this content, and the title is not a useful redirect because of the grammatical error. Unclear rationale for deprod. Reyk YO! 15:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • looking at Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process:

      "When to use the deletion process? Articles that the community feels cannot improve, or are unlikely to improve, are often deleted.

      "When to not use deletion process? Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing. Articles we are not interested in – some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept. Articles on topics you wish didn't exist for personal belief reasons – Wikipedia contains information on all topics, not just those which any person or group agrees with.

      deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved.

      & WP:DEL-REASON: Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page)

      Of the 14 listed reasons in WP:DEL-REASON, the article doesn't fulfill any of the 14.

      I can't see how editors preferring deletion have adhered to the criteria for deletion as described in the the two page Sederecarinae (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • WP:AFD If you want to nominate an article, the Wikipedia deletion policy explains the criteria for deletion, and may help you understand when an article should be nominated for deletion. The guide to deletion explains the deletion process. If an article meets the criteria for deletion and you understand the process, consult the instructions below. If you are unsure whether a page should be nominated for deletion, or if you need more help, try this talk page or Wikipedia's help desk. Sederecarinae (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others; does not have clear and reasonable selection criteria MB 17:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • is an inadmissible, unacceptable reason because selection criteria is a sub-heading of "Appropriate topics for lists" of the article Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, not a reason for deletion. The reason given by User:MB is an observation the article nominated doesn't fulfil the criteria for a List, that is all. This is already described in my first response at 1), I didn't title the article List anything, that is a failing of the nominating editor to have thought the article is a list in any case, because it isn't titled a list and the contents aren't intended to be a list. Even if the article were intended to be a list but is not fulfilling the criteria, is not a legitimate reason for deletion, is infact more or less an irrelevant fact. Sederecarinae (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please stop telling everybody that they're wrong because their argument is not enumerated in WP:DEL-REASON. That list is not comprehensive (Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following). WP:LSC is a guideline, which means you're expected to follow it aside from the occasional exception, and if that's not possible to do for a page then it's a perfectly valid rationale for deletion. The fact the page's title doesn't contain "List" doesn't mean it's not a list. Hut 8.5 18:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • that is not correct because as I've described WP:BEFORE (in WP:AFD) links to WP:DEL-REASON via the link anchor "valid grounds for deletion" ie, AFD describes deletion-reason (the list of 14 reasons) as being the "valid grounds" Sederecarinae (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • secondarily, as I've already indicated, the nomination itself is invalid, because the nominating editor did not follow the description policy for actions to take before nomination, as I've indicated in the response I made to your first inclusion on this page and elsewhere. Sederecarinae (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC) c.f. Wikipedia:GDBN Sederecarinae (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • the problems of the page, identified by yourself and others could be in a large part addressed by the cleanup or disputed templates, in addition, the fact that you have identified are not limited to, their are 14 criteria listed wouldn't you think that that fact of there being 14 listed indicates the 14 idenbtified were important enough to show on the the page, and reasons other than the 14 aren't as important a reason for deletion as one or more of the 14, the first is criteria for speedy deletion which does indicate that the 1st reason is the most important reason for deletion in the 14, and Deletion is last resort. In considering reasons other than those shown in the list of 14 reasons:

          The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

          Wikipedia:4DDd the purpose of XfD is to decide whether an article fails a policy. Even if 40 people vote to delete, if they don't have a reason to do so, the article will be kept. Sederecarinae (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

          • WP:DEL is a policy, it has official status and people are expected to follow it. The other page you've linked to does not have official status and is attempting to briefly summarise part of the deletion policy. The fact it doesn't mention all the bits of that section does not mean anything. Hut 8.5 18:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I've mentioned, the first listed reason is criteria for speedy deletion, which must include the most obvious and strongest reasoned arguments for the deletion of an article (being the fastest response to the need for deletion), the second, copyright violations is also comparatively a strong reason, being an actual legal obligation, and the list therefore must presumably proceed by number accordingly, going down the numbers indicates lesser important reasons. This article doesn't fulfil any of the 14 reasons shown, what is the actual reason? The only reason I could find is in the 14th Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information but I've provided an explanation for the statistics. Sederecarinae (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a mess of a list, doesn't have a coherent topic and would not be useful if it was in an even vaguely complete state. The scope includes cases where people deliberately killed people but also where people were killed by people by accident, cases where people died as a result of engaging in risky behaviours and apparently even freak accidents arising from unremarkable behaviours. This isn't a coherent scope. If expanded it would be even messier, for example one section gives a breakdown of people killed by police forces in the US and US in the last few years, if expanded to cover every country in the world over the last 119 years it would take up an absurd amount of space. We have a number of other lists which present this information, such as List of causes of death by rate, Preventable causes of death, List of countries by suicide rate, List of countries by intentional homicide rate and List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll, I suggest the creator contribute to those or start something with a clearly defined scope like that. Hut 8.5 17:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is not intended to be a list, do you see list in the title? The list you've shown links to don't " present this information ", you haven't even looked at the other lists, if you had and found this article is a repition of content in the Lists you could have given the reason as a repetition of content in other articles, which is a reason for deletion, but isn't true of this article. If you look at Wikipedia:Deletion_and_deletionism#Step_One:_Verify_if_the_article_in_question_can_be_improved_rather_than_be_deleted, is messier, messiness, it is amess or anything of the description to do with messiness isn't anything at all to do with a reason for deletion, or in any of the links I've provided. Messiness is not a reason, in Deletion_and_deletionism#Step_One:_Verify_if_the_article_in_question_can_be_improved_rather_than_be_deleted shows shows See if you can find any sources easily with a 2-minute Google search. See how many Google hits the article has. If you can't easily find any sources and there are very few Google hits relating to the article, go on to step two. If you CAN find sources, though, go ahead and add references to the article Not one of you is following the description in procedure for deletion nomination, and there isn't any indication anyone has made any effort to add references to the article. The article doesn't fulfil any of the 14 criteria for deletion I've described for deletion already, what then are the actual reasons for deletion? Sederecarinae (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I get that you're new, but you don't seem to have understood the pages you're quoting here, but you have nevertheless decided that everybody else is very very wrong. For a start Wikipedia:Deletion and deletionism is an essay and therefore ultimately just someone's opinion. It doesn't have any official standing. Secondly the concerns which are being raised here can't be addressed through editing. Take the overlap argument. The list attempts to break down the casualties of the Second World War. This is done in much greater detail at World War II casualties. What is the justification for doing it separately here, exactly? I don't see anything. In fact given the scope of the list it ought to be expanded to include breakdowns of the casualties of the other wars in the 20th and 21st centuries, and There's rather a lot of those, unfortunately. And that's just the wars, never mind the sections on murder, police deaths, etc. The result would not be useful to our readers. This problem cannot be addressed through editing because it is fundamental to any page with this title and scope.
        The bit you've quoted about sources is not relevant here. The most common reason given for deletion here, by a large margin, is that the topic doesn't have adequate sourcing. People nominating pages for deletion for that reason are advised to check for the existence of suitable sources, yes. But this page hasn't been nominated for deletion for that reason. The fact that sources exist on some topic does not mean we can have an article on it. It only means we can have an article on it if it isn't disallowed for some other reason. Hut 8.5 18:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you're stating the reason for deletion would be WP:NOT#IINFO ? Sederecarinae (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I have already said, there is no comprehensive list of reasons why pages can be deleted here, and any logically valid argument would do. However if you insist on a policy link then it does come under WP:NOT#IINFO as it is an indiscriminate collection of statistics. Hut 8.5 19:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • The reasons for deletion are given in policy WP:DEL, the only of the list the article currently seems to breach is in the 14th, but as I've stated above, I've provided an explanation in the article. The list is discriminated by "human-made" as the description of the content inclusion, not by disease or natural disaster c.f. 4). Sederecarinae (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • the primary subject of the article is: cause of death, the secondary subject is: human made (artificial) or by human behaviour, the article seeks to describe this subject as a more specific subject to the generally defined subject Causes in the primary. Sederecarinae (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • The fact you can point to inclusion criteria does not make it not indiscriminate, because those criteria are extremely broad. As written the list includes everything from nuclear warfare to accidental electrocution by headphones as individual items. Presumably you could expand it to include accidental decapitation by helicopter and being crushed by a hay bale, along with a million others. Regarding your claim that WP:DEL-REASON is a comprehensive list, I suggest you have a look at WP:IDHT, as your reading is the exact opposite of what the policy clearly says. Hut 8.5 19:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • Is this an article? WP:DISRUPTSIGNS is with regards to editing in articles not in discussions for deletion. Is WP:IDHT a policy? You attempt to close my opinions because they don't agree with yours and a number of others. I don't agree with you and a number of other editors so my insistence on a particular opinion is thought disruptive is that it? I'm stating the list indicates, at the 1st and 2nd positions in the list the 1st most important reason and the second most important, wouldn't you agree? why the editor who created the policy listed the reasons for deletion in numerical order, instead of in a list without numbers? I haven't stated I think the list is comprehensive, where do you see the word comprehensive in my explanation prior to your comment, there isn't any mention of the word. As to your claim I'm being disruptive, perhaps you'd like to read > Wikipedia:4DDd the purpose of XfD is to decide whether an article fails a policy. Even if 40 people vote to delete, if they don't have a reason to do so, the article will be kept as your reading is simply in error compared to policy. As to the identification of two types of death "decapitation by helicopter, crushed by a hay bale" Why not include the information you have identified, is there a reason not to? you don't actually in reality know the amount of information possible to include in the article, you're just presuming to know without any proof of the information potentially being too much to include within the article, I could (yourself or any other editor) summarise the information, move the article title accordingly, create a more specific article, there are millions or articles in wikipedia. Sederecarinae (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • {{ping|Hut 8.5}}perhaps you'd like to look at the definition of the word riled, because I'm sure this word applies to yourself, perhaps I'm wrong, and my deepest and sincere regret for having ever bothered you with my futile efforts to reason against the current consus seeing this is the exact moment of realization of consensus as you have so rightly identified for all our (and for the species benefit, of course) I am humbly corrected. the purpose of XfD is to decide whether an article fails a policy. Even if 40 people vote to delete, if they don't have a reason to do so, the article will be kept Sederecarinae (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                    • You just told everybody who commented here that their reason is invalid because it isn't listed in WP:DEL-REASON, even though that's exactly the opposite of what WP:DEL-REASON says, and you carried on after this was pointed out to you. That's disruptive. You can't claim that the people arguing this page should be deleted don't have a reason either, they clearly do. You might not agree with it or like it but it is there. I don't see any point in continuing this discussion further. Hut 8.5 20:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can understand the concept, but the article would need to be started over completely to have clear methodology for what to include. This is just an assortment of whatever unrelated and incomparable statistics about deaths you could find, without any coherent selection criteria. The list of "other accidental deaths" that have killed one single person could get pretty out of hand. It's very random organization, varying in sections by what years and countries are included and in what formats, which basic clean-up wouldn't fix. Preventable causes of death could be expanded to include some of this, but this is not the way to do it. Reywas92Talk 20:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is not possible because WP:TNT states the reasons for are usually Copyright violations and extensive cases of advocacy and undisclosed paid sock farms are frequently blown up. As I've stated before the list isn't incoherent:

      Human and artificial cause death in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries

      • Tobacco - is a natural substance, but the inclusion is because it is manufactured by humans and added to places of commerce for purchase, it is in a form which is made - cigars, cigarettes and packaged tobacco; compared to Causes of death - lung cancer, this is often caused by tobacco, but in this article the cause tobacco is given, because the article isn't about medically determined causes of death, as for example in autopsy, the coroner found the individuals death was caused by - if the coroner found lung cancer, they wouldn't state tobacco, they would state lung-cancer. In addition tobacco is included in human cause by human behaviour, as decribed in the introduction
      • Alcohol - is produced and added to flavoured beverages in manufacturing, by human behaviour, and the drinking of alcohol is a human behavior, lie smoking of tobacco.
      • Road traffic accidents - the car was invented by humans, assembled, driven at the time of death by a human
      • Illegal drugs - this is meant narcotics, classified substances particularly recreational and psychoactif drugs - which are consumed particularly for there pleasurable effects, that humans choose to take.
      • War is obvious - since it involves the intentional killing of others, or the amoral cause of death (by bombs)
    • et cetera

      the selection criteria belong to subjects of law, or social science. Sederecarinae (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      • More importantly, "Human and artificial cause death" is not a category. Tobacco causes cancer and heart disease, but so do poor diet, radiation, and certain substances, exposure to which is arguably artificial. Knock yourself out if you can find reliable sources that discuss very specific items like "By the use of force in restraint techniques", cannibalism, and spacecraft explosions in conjunction with very broad categories like war, but your attempt to WP:BLUDGEON this is a waste of everyone's time. Reywas92Talk 21:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the persuasive arguments above. Without a central tenet and with too much synthesis this will never be a valid article. Sanction the creator for bludgeoning this discussion and rendering the AFD unreadable StarM 02:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is not a actual reason > tenet : a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true, https://www.etymonline.com/word/tenet, doesn't show anything that might be applied to the article, unless I'm to think you would prefer for me and others to take the 15th century sense of the word - tenet : "principle, opinion, or dogma maintained as true by a person, sect, school, etc.," properly "a thing held (to be true)," early 15c., from Latin tenet "he holds," third person singular present indicative of tenere "to hold, grasp, keep, have possession, maintain," - what isn't true about the description in the title and contents under the title. If you intend to indicate the 15th century sense, to hold, to maintain - a theme > the theme is Death > causes of death > death caused by human action or behaviour or artificial causes. I've already given the theme in this discussion elsewhere, it is:

      "the primary subject of the article is: cause of death, the secondary subject is: human made (artificial) or by human behaviour, the article seeks to describe this subject as a more specific subject to the generally defined subject Causes in the primary. Sederecarinae (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)"

    • indicate where the article content fails to hold to this theme, there isn't anywhere in the article it doesn't adhere to the theme, so your criticism is invalid. As for "too much synthesis", if you look at List of causes of death by rate, you see the causes I've included in this article in the article List of causes of death by rate. In any other academic article, the headings are determined by sources and the whim of contributory editors to add material to articles they themselves think is relevant, supported by sources. There isn't any synthesis beyond the inclusion of headings in addition to those causes found in the List of causes of death by rate article, this fact is no different to any other article, which is to add facts and organise them to headings, the sources provide the information and the content made from the information becomes organised as additions are made, this is a form of synthesis, yes, what is the problem with synthesis? What actually is the problem with synthesis? Sederecarinae (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{ping|Hut 8.5|Star Mississippi|Reyk|Tagishsimon|CAPTAIN RAJU}} Looking at the number of articles in the first page only of Category:Start-Class Death articles, there is a large number of articles on the subject of death, how the criticisms and eliminating this article are more important than allowing the article time to develop? Sederecarinae (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Synthesis" is referring to WP:SYNTHESIS, in other words you haven't taken the particular categories or statistics from any reliable source but instead you've picked some based on your own opinion. List of causes of death by rate uses a categorisation system from the WHO, which is much closer to how Wikipedia is supposed to work. It certainly isn't true that "the causes I've included in this article in the article List of causes of death by rate", because that page doesn't include decapitation by helicopter, cannibalism, people shot by police who possessed a gun or knife, meat blender accidents, nuclear warfare or most of the other categories you picked. Yes, there are plenty of articles on death, and death is a perfectly good topic to write about on Wikipedia, but it doesn't follow that every possible article about death is fine. Hut 8.5 21:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could have made this discussion readable again yourself, as I just did. Should you be sanctioned, too? Uncle G (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge - The content on this page generally overlaps other articles. We don't need an overview article with this scope (restricted only to deaths with artificial causes in recent centuries); I think the existing overview articles have more straightforward scopes. No single article can cover all these topics in as fine a detail as individual incidents, so I don't see a place for this article in the encyclopedia. However, some of the other articles that should have some of the content here don't. I added links to some from appropriate places like List of causes of death by rate, and these (and linked lists and subarticles that have more detail) would be better targets for improvement:
  • Delete: if it's a list (and yes, I know the creator is saying it isn't) then it's not one with a clearly-defined or useful scope; listing all causes of deaths or all statistics of deaths worldwide in the 1900s and 2000s would require 10,000 different pages, not one list. If it's an article then it's not clear under what grounds it's notable as certainly none of the sources in the article discuss the topic "Human and artificial cause death in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries", only subtopics of this. (Consider for example a hypothetical article Relationship between grapes and deontology which has lots of sources on grapes and lots of sources on deontology; nevertheless it doesn't meet notability criteria as none of the sources discuss both in combination. This is analogous as none of the article's sources discuss the lengthy title "Human and artificial cause ... centuries".) And as the final nail in the coffin, regardless of what the page is supposed to be, it doesn't currently provide any utility to readers due to its mishmash of content and by IAR we are therefore free to TNT it. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coming back after the page rename to add: still delete and oppose merge with Unnatural death. Everything I said above still stands. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Coming back again, after the move to "Non-natural death", to say: still delete and salt to prevent recreation. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2019 (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/2019 April 23. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 22:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose merge That article could certainly be expanded, but a haphazard collection of incomparable statistics and rare but amusing ways people died ("electrocuted by improvised apparatus for use as sexual stimulation – 2 known deaths (in North America)") should not be what that article becomes. Unnatural death could be merged instead to Cause of death, which also needs expansion; it could discuss causes of death, natural and unnatural, beyond just rates and counts or the fact that one American has died of decapitation by helicopter or other specific obscure circumstances. Reywas92Talk 23:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aloha No opinion to report this time. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Couldn't care less Why was I pinged on this? --Pascal666 23:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unnatural death could certainly do with expansion but I don't think merging this content would do any good. Hut 8.5 06:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure were to start. Primary sources need to be trimmed. Article needs to be rewritten as a summary. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Load of synth. oknazevad (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and all the above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Give me an example of where I've taken a number of sources and used those sources to imply something not included in the sources. The is no SYNTH in the article. Give an example of where the SYNTH is. I see this:
      • "too much synthesis" Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2019,
        • "too much synthesis" StarM 02:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC),
      • referring to WP:SYNTHESIS, in other words you haven't taken the particular categories or statistics from any reliable source but instead you've picked some based on your own opinion. Hut 8.5 21:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
      • (Consider for example a hypothetical article Relationship between grapes and deontology which has lots of sources on grapes and lots of sources on deontology; nevertheless it doesn't meet notability criteria as none of the sources discuss both in combination. This is analogous as none of the article's sources discuss the lengthy title "Human and artificial cause ... centuries".) Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
      • "Load of synth" oknazevad (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2019
    • but infact there is not one example of SYNTH in the article - the opinions are like the echo of a sound in a deep-cave - they are just empty, the first mention of SYNTH seems to indicate something which I presumed must be an opinion with depth, but if I can't find how the criticism applies to the article then all I have is a criticism that is intended to enlighten me to my errors, but is infact made from a place with no light to see the actual details of the problem. SYNTH states in the first sentence > Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. That is intended to communicate for example, in philosophical reasoning "Syllogism (Greek: συλλογισμός syllogismos, "conclusion, inference") is a kind of logical argument", in the syllogism article:

      All men are mortal. (would be information added to Non-natural_death_in_the_twentieth_and_twenty-first_centuries from one source)

      Socrates is a man. (would be information added to Non-natural_death_in_the_twentieth_and_twenty-first_centuries from one source)

      Therefore, Socrates is mortal.(would be the conclusion and the use of SYNTH that editors are attempting to apply to the article Non-natural_death_in_the_twentieth_and_twenty-first_centuries)

    • It is obvious that the article does not include SYNTH because there are no arguments in the article. The article is simply, to demonstrate the existence of, and to give examples of, the elements of the article title identified as "non-natural death", there are no conclusions in the article, i am not providing any arguments, it is simply about the examples of non-natural causes. SYNTH is an element of WP:OR, not an independent stand-alone criticism, there is no original research in the article, if any editor is able to see an example of when I've added original research give the example, I'm not waiting around to see the example, because there are no examples of WP:OR, so there cannot be any examples of SYNTH. This example of failure of criticism in an attempt at a line of criticism is true of many of the criticisms, typified by "per nom and all the above. User:Lugnuts 06:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)" The argument provided by the editor is without reason, no reason is given, if a reason is given then it is simply the application of the word "reason" as some access-code to the deletion debate, without any observation of the actual meaning of reason in policy, and the underlying reason for the existence of policy. How any of these criticisms are essential enough that the article must be deleted. I have given the evidence of how the article title is valid, and in any case is already in existence at Unnatural death, as Scott A. Rushing, FSA, MAAA Head of Global Research, Jason McKinley, FSA Assistant Actuary : "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists several principal causes of non-natural deaths in the United States: accidental poisoning, motor vehicle accidents, unintentional falls, suicide by firearms or other means, homicide by firearms or other means, accidental drowning, complications from medical or surgical treatments, and accidental exposure to smoke and fire.". This source demonstrates via the CDC the legitimacy of the concept "Non-natural death" as an independently existing fact. The misapprehension of the title to "Non-natural death" being a fact of medical terminology as in "Preventable causes of death The World Health Organization has traditionally classified death according to the primary type of disease or injury. However, causes of death may also be classified in terms of preventable risk factors" for example, caused editors to therefore think it possible to criticize the article as necessarily merged to other articles, or because it doesn't fulfill either of these classifications should be deleted, is to some extent my failure to identify the general subject of the article (which is actuarial science, insurance - risk, law), not an actual reason for deletion. As to the scope of twenty and twenty-first centuries c.f. Causes of death over 100 years Explore and learn more about how the causes of death have changed over the last century published 18 September 2017 by the Office for National Statistics (Britain). Sederecarinae (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All your criticisms, none of you make an effort to improve the article, by attempting to identify sources per WP:DNA (Wikipedia:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!) "Articles may survive the deletion process for several reasons The article improves to encyclopedic standards while the discussion is underway" (which I see is not a page on policy, but is obvious in any case), your behaviours as critical demonstrate only your interest in deletion, not constructive contribution, why not try and help save the article. "Unnatural death" exists, no-one has nominated that article for deletion, try and think how that is possible since https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unnatural_death&oldid=23942338, created 24 septembre 2005 à 21:40 with no sources. Sederecarinae (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • c.f. Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Non-natural_death_in_the_twentieth_and_twenty-first_centuries Sederecarinae (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since one of the criticisms is SYNTH, c.f.: 
    {{multiple issues|{{original research|date=April 2019}}}}

    as is the case in the Hallucinogen article. Sederecarinae (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Non-natural deaths have been occurring throughout entire human history. There's nothing special about twentieth and twenty-first centuries and there's no point in highlighting these particular centuries. The focus of interest of most reliable sources is the non-natural death itself (for which there's already an article), not its occurrence in a given century. Brandmeistertalk 19:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nominators rationale-Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2019 (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/2019 April 24. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 21:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{ping|Brandmeister}} changed the title to Non-natural death in contemporary history, and will add a heading "History" Sederecarinae (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{ping|Reyk|Tagishsimon|Clarityfiend|Dheerajmpai23|MB|Hut 8.5| StarM| Doc James|Lugnuts|Ozzie10aaaa }} please see Mortality statistics: every cause of death in England and Wales, visualised How do we die? Are you more likely to get knocked down by a car, bitten by a dog or fall down the stairs? Find out with the latest mortality statistics vis-à-vis "a strange sampling of bits and pieces" (Reyk), "a weird and incoherent mix of things" (Tagishsimon ), "an agglomeration of stats for random years, ranging from war to one "meat-blender accident" (Clarityfiend),"Not a useful list" (Dheerajmpai23), "does not have clear and reasonable selection criteria" (MB), "a mess of a list, doesn't have a coherent topic and would not be useful if it was in an even vaguely complete state" (Hut 8.5), "assortment of whatever unrelated and incomparable statistics about deaths you could find, without any coherent selection criteria" (Reywas92), " Without a central tenet" ( StarM), "per nom and all the above" (Lugnuts), " per nominators rationale" (Ozzie10aaaa) Sederecarinae (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to the collection of criticism identified at 22:33 hrs 24th, https://www.rgare.com/docs/default-source/newsletters-articles/non-natural-deaths.pdf?sfvrsn=f04ea088_0, and https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/unnatural-death indicate criteria for inclusion of types of deaths. In https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/28/mortality-statistics-causes-death-england-wales-2010, accidents and external causes is non-natural deaths (the second table down), in https://crvsgateway.info/External-causes-of-death~340 (University of Melbourne "External causes of death - deaths due to external or unnatural causes" Sederecarinae (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no objection in princple to a list which attempts to break down deaths, even unnatural deaths, into sub-categories. But it should have to be something like List of causes of death by rate which does so in a vaguely systematic fashion, rather than just picking whatever death-related statistics you feel like. I suggest you stop with the WP:WALLOFTEXT and mass pinging, they aren't helping your case. Hut 8.5 06:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • TLDR. Probably best you stop badgering people who don't agree with keeping this article. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 05:47, 25 April 2019 (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/2019 April 24. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 23:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: my !vote remains the same despite the bludgeon and name changing. This is not worthy of an encyclopedia article. Please stop pinging me. StarM 00:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an excessive listing of unexplained statistics failing the third point at WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The creator's constant argument and walls of text are not helpful in advancing their case. – Teratix ₵ 01:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I'm not changing my !vote. Stop pinging me. Reyk YO! 05:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Teratix and Hut 8.5: "the creator's constant argument and walls of text are not helpful in advancing their case." "I suggest you stop with the WP:WALLOFTEXT and mass pinging, they aren't helping your case" so the reason why I'm wrong in my choices, is because I'm actually disagreeing with the other editors and have shown reasons for my disagreement in writing, is that the actual reason? Where in policy does it show my attempt at a discussion by taking any position at all in the discussion other than the majority vote, is why I'm wrong? c.f. comparison on the version at the time of nomination to the current version. The other editors arguments to deletion are rigidly adherent to their first decision of deletion, but the version are showing difference that I've made trying to incorporate their criticisms. The article is now significantly different, but I shouldn't ping the editors to attempt to gain their attention to observe the differences. I am a ignoramus mouse in a hole, and will not bother any of you again > . < that is my hole and if you look closely you will see my small mouse like face within that hole looking out. Thanks Sederecarinae (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
all your opinions, they are sqweak Sederecarinae (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am a mouse infestation (help!) on this discussion page > . < this hole is where I live Sederecarinae (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what I said, and neither did anyone else. The problem isn't your opinion but the way you take part in the discussion. Instead of putting your opinion across reasonably concisely you opted to try to start an argument with everybody who disagreed with you, posting massive amounts of text (which discourages people from trying to read it), and when people didn't respond or stopped responding you started pinging them to insist they come back and carry on discussing it with you. This just irritates people and doesn't help your case. I suggest you read WP:BLUDGEON as it pretty accurately describes how you've gone about taking part here. Hut 8.5 17:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of the Jade Falcon

Curse of the Jade Falcon (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)

Short film with questionable notability. The only thing it has going for it is that it apparently won a award. Though that is uncited. I found the IMDB link, which does not even mention that-making that look questionable. I can't seem to find any sources either. Wgolf (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:MOVIE, I tried searching for reliable sources but didn't come up with anything that would show notability.--Phospheros (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Strictly weighing the !votes on policy based arguments, the consensus here is keep. I would recommend the nom and Garlicolive to make their suggestions for a merge or move on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New racism

New racism (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 should be deleted or merged with its author's article at best, by the reasons that I stated in its 'Talk' page. I will copy them here, so upcoming user's do not need to go there:

"I agree, this article should be deleted. It hardly fits Wikipedia's criteria of notability. It must be remembered that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and that summary-only descriptions of works are specifically singled out as non belonging to it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information). Other than its first paragraph, this article barely resumes the concept provided by Barker (along with some citations, which does not necessarily recognizes it as of wide academic interest or respectability) and should be dealt with in that author's own article as a subsection. Having roughly a dozen of citations about a term or work is not enough to consider it 'highly cited', as Wikipedia's guidelines state that these kinds of subjects must be (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Specific_criteria_notes); specially when other works and concepts have them by hundreds. Not to mention, also, that in academic disciplines that are so narrow as the study of sociological tendencies in late XX century European media, further guidelines of the Wikipedia apply: "Overly narrow and highly specialized categories should be avoided. Arguing that someone is an expert in an extremely narrow area of study is, in and of itself, not necessarily sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1. (The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline...)". Therefore, in agreement with Alfietucker, I shall start the procedures to delete this article. Miguerum (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Agreeing with the AfD nominator, this article is too specific, but I vote for a merge instead of a deletion, the parent article could accomodate this term without issues. Garlicolive (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 10:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article opens new insights in Marxist ideology that can be beneficial for academic references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WTFS8 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There are both weak and substantive arguments on either side of this discussion. While the arguments to delete are slightly stronger, the claim that the subject meets NAUTHOR has not been convincingly refuted (as the claims to GNG have been). The discussion has been relisted thrice, so I have no option but to close this as "no consensus", with no prejudice against renomination at any point. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Celi

Elizabeth Celi (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)

Not notable. According to her website she is no longer engaged in the practice of psychology, but is apparently looking for work as a director in the film industry. According to her film CV, she has not yet made any notable or even significant films, She never was notable as a psychologist, the only references for this are her own interviews. I cannot confirm Director of Australian Psychological Society, but that seems to be an administrative position, not president of a society. She has published 2 unimportant academic papers in minor journals, and self-published two books. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject's book Breaking the silence : a practical guide for male victims of domestic abuse is held in at least sixty-seven libraries across Australia, see here and here. Self published or not, unworthy books do not get this level of ackowledgement. Passes NAUTHOR. Aoziwe (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we were discussing the notability of the book then being held in dozens of libraries would be no evidence of notability; there are vast numbers of books that are held in hundreds or thousands of libraries which come nowhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. However, even if we were to accept inclusion in dozens of libraries as evidence of notability of the book, that would not establish notability of its author, as notability is not inherited. And finally no, nothing at all in WP:NAUTHOR could possibly be interpreted as meaning that having written a book which is held in dozens of libraries establishes notability, nor does anything in any of the other notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The subject was a director, and here, ie, a Board member. This is a governance position, and not an administrator, but yes, subordinate to the President. Aoziwe (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Personally I would very much like to see this article kept, because I think that Elizabeth Celi has something to say which deserves to be better known. However, after years of telling new editors that neither I like it nor publicising a point of view is justification for existence of an article, I have to set my own opinion aside. Unfortunately, nothing in the article suggests that she passes any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines; nor does anything in the cited sources (two are her own LinkedIn page and her page on the web site of an organisation she is connected to, one merely includes her name in a list, and all the others do no more than give a few quotes from her); nor does anything else I have been able to find (I searched through the first few dozens of Google hits, and almost all were not independent sources, the very few exceptions being unsuitable for other reasons, such as this Wikipedia article). The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On one hand I agree with you. If we take the relevant NGs on facevalue as they currently stand then, no, the subject is not notable. By consensus, picking a sport article example such as G. Fernando, it is seen that this person satifies WP:NCRICKET/WP:CRIN because they have appeared in one first class match. They essentially completely failed to perform, and are almost absolutely certain never to appear again in any way in WP and their article will remain a micro stub forever. (There are many many more such examples across cricket, football, etc.) The subject in question here, however, is a multiple times author, is sought out for many interviews and panel discussions, and is likely to have future content in WP if the article remains. I am not running an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument here but I am running an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS BY LONGSTANDING AND REVIEWED CONSENSUS argument, based on STUFF which I believe is far far less notable than the subject in question here. Yes the article does need better references, and I suggest there are sufficient to better support the article (accepting though they are barely within current NGs). Regardless of whether we like it or do not like it, surely the fundemental question is "Does it improve the encyclopedia". I believe it does. Surely if we believe there are such grounds, it is up to us to challenge consensus. We need to remember if consensus was followed in regard to encyclopedias, WP would not exist in the first place, and we would not want our own rules to stifle our own evolution - I suggest that this instance lends itself to WP:IAR? Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
THe problem Aoziwe is that if you nominate a cricket article, all the cricket fans turn up together, as a team and insist "we have decided to set the bar low and keep everything", albeit without references to WP:GNG, and then the closing admin goes with who turned up with more friends rather than who made policy-based arguments. And then people don't want the hassle, and it just gets kept. Tony May (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment' In making my nomination here, I was considerably influenced by the factthat her books are self-published. Self published books or a self published writer are notable only in exceptional circumstances (the most common exceptional circumstance at WP are in science-fiction, where major writers sometimes publish this way, and of course this can also be true of alternative or underground literature. But I think just the opposite is true for self-help or popular psychology is just the opposite--self publishing in this field is an admission of either insignificance or publishing for the sake of publicity. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A search on Ebsco databases shows that she was frequently quoted on the topic of men's mental health in media across Australia from 2008-2016, so I'm not sure that it's true to say "She never was notable as a psychologist". Many of the sources currently in the article quote her on topics related to men's mental health or domestic violence against men - are they what you are referring to when you say "the only references for this are her own interviews", DGG? I would see them as examples of WP:AUTHOR #1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." I do think the article could be improved - having a section called "Public speaker and media commentator" sounds more like promotion of her, than outlining the areas she has worked in and the issues she has highlighted. The articles are not interviews with her - they are articles about the topics noted with quotes from her (and others) as a leader in the field. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspapers are not "peers or successors" A mental health practitioner being available for interviews is a part of promoting their business. I assume you are refering to the sources currently in the article.:
Sydney MorningHerald quotes her as 1 of 4. ABC: one of several people who were quotations .Adeleidenow: t. The Herald cites only her. BrisbaneTimes , one of 3; TheWest, 1 of 4. Some of the othersare actually academic experts who have published in the area, without needing to resort to self-publishing. DGG ( talk ) 16:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject serves as a consultant to government and her books are widely held in public libraries. Meets notability requirements. MurielMary (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to anything in any of the notability guidelines to which either which either serving as a consultant to government or having book held in public libraries is relevant? (Incidentally, my wife has served as a consultant to government, but I do not believe she comes within a thousand miles of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.} Lubbad85 (☎) 17:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clicking on the Google news search at the top of this deletion discussion I see she is seen as an expect in her field, many news sources quoting her on a variety of topics. Easily passes the general notability guidelines as well. Dream Focus 19:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG. I agree with the last three writers' reasoning. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BASIC requires significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. The sources used are little more than passing mentions of or limited quotes from Celi, with the exception of http://globalpublishinggroup.com.au/authors/elizabeth-celi/ but that is simply the publisher's profile of one of their authors. If we take that as meeting GNG, we are inviting articles for every author who publishes a book, and that's not how we have defined notability. We also should not confuse a book's notability with that of its author, as it is a principle that notability is not inherited. --RexxS (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per RexxS. That a url to Linkedin is one of the main sources is concerning. This is coverage in passing.[5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Celi has been quoted in the media, but I do not see substantive independent sources about her, which is what it takes to establish notability. Quite laughable to think that one self-published book being in a few dozen libraries is "acknowledgement" that makes one notable; libraries hold cumulative millions of books. Reywas92Talk 04:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a resume. Trillfendi (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Trillfendi So what? Her accomplishments are documented. Meets WP:Author She is a recognized expert in her field, and easily passes WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a resume. The first citation is literally her LinkedIn page! Unacceptable. Trillfendi (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What are the multiple independent reliable sources that contain significant coverage of Celi? WP:AUTHOR is an indication, not an alternative to GNG, which still has to be met. --RexxS (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to ITU-T#Key standards published by ITU. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 17:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G.114

AfDs for this article:
G.114 (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 survived an AfD 15 years ago based on the usual old arguments that 'it may be important/there may be sources/etc.'. 15 years ago we have higher standards, this is still a jargon-full, nearly unreadable stub copied from some technical documentation, and it fails WP:GNG badly. WP:BEFORE does not reveal anything outside expected mentions in passing in technical documentations. At best, this can be redirected somewhere (through there's no referenced content to merge). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No vote because this article makes.... no sense. I can't understand what on earth it's talking about so it might or might not be notable whatsoever. Maybe WP:TNT if anyone actually knows what it's about? Mosaicberry (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Testa

Mario Testa (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)

WP:BLP of a person with neither a strong claim of "inherent" notability under any of Wikipedia's subject-specific inclusion standards, nor enough reliable source coverage to get over WP:GNG. The notability claims here are serving as chairman of a political party's local chapter in a single midsized-city and owning a restaurant in that same city, but neither of those things is an article-clinching notability claim in and of itself -- but the bulk of the sourcing here is not to media coverage about him for the purposes of establishing his notability, but to glancing namechecks of his existence in purely local media coverage of other people or things. And while there are a couple of pieces that are more strongly about him than most of the others, they're still local and they're still not covering him in encyclopedically noteworthy contexts. There are some serious BLP problems here, as well, because untried and unconvicted allegations of unethical behaviour aren't notability-makers for an otherwise non-notable politician. Per WP:PERP, a person who wasn't already notable before being faced with a criminal allegation does not suddenly clear the notability bar on the allegation itself — he would have to be convicted of something before he might have a legitimate claim to be notable on criminal grounds, not merely charged or alleged.
As always, people at the local level of significance are not automatically deemed to pass GNG just because they've gotten their name into their local media a bunch of times -- to be notable enough for inclusion just for being a political party's local committee chair in one midsized city, he would need to be able to show much wider coverage than just the routinely expected handful of hits in that city's own local media. Bearcat (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Film Festival International

Film Festival International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any significant coverage of this organization in reliable sources. There's a long list of citations, but almost all are to the organization's various websites, along with some press releases and broken links to tourism websites for good measures.

The only two cited sources that seem independent (although probably not reliable) are a post on shortfilm.de and another on ismailmartin.com (in Spanish). But these are actually criticizing these supposed film festivals as scams or psuedofestivals!

This seems like a pretty obvious case of "predatory festivals" (the film world cousin of predatory journals). I say we delete it with prejudice. —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I am not opposed to having an article about a pseudo festival, but this one needs to be rewritten from the ground up, per WP:TNT. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, there's nothing inherently problematic about writing about a "pseudofestival"—I was thinking about it primarily as a sign that it's not the kind of genuine event that's likely to get coverage in reliable sources.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Herrera-Flanigan

Jessica Herrera-Flanigan (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)

Another promotional article for a member of the Monument Policy Group. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG in addition to the fact it was most likely written by a PR professional. GPL93 (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete Pretty resume but notability in independent sources is not established. Reywas92Talk 04:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Verdery

Stewart Verdery (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)

Another promotional article for a member of the Monument Policy Group. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. GPL93 (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Intent (group)

Soul Intent (group) (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 hip hop group that fails WP:GNG and WP:RS. The group has absolutely no notability other than its affiliation with Eminem. Non of the members other then Eminem had successful solo careers. Non of the releases by the group ever charted. Sources about the group are almost non existent. Most of the information that's currently on the article is completely unsourced and unsubstantiated. The few sources that are listed in the article are from crudely sourced user generated websites like Discogs, MusicBrainz and Genius. Sources [6] [7] [8] are only mere mentions. The article was previously nominated for deletion in 29 September 2008, which ended in a redirect to Eminem, but the redirect was reverted. Considering how obscure the group is and how very little information there is on the internet about the group, a redirect to Eminem would be unnecessary. Mysticair667537 (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) SSSB (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Winfield High School (Kansas)

Winfield High School (Kansas) (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)

There is no evidence of notabillity. Clearly fails WP:SIGCOV. SSSB (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC) In light of changes to the article since nomination and the below comments I would like to withdraw my nomination. SSSB (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools says "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept". While the fine print note says "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." and "WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning.", that's just a de jure formality. The reality is that American comprehensive high schools are kept and that nominations like these usually fail for a reason. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: And within a few seconds I found a published secondary source on Google Books, from Arcadia Publishing, talking about the school in detail. There would be no doubt that local newspapers in Winfield, Kansas would have articles talking about the school in detail. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepDitto above comments, clearly passes GNG as a result. DrewieStewie (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This institution meets notability criteria. Spyder212 (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that this person is not notable. I would like to note, though, that the article was not A7 eligible, because of a possible claim for notability. Randykitty (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Aby

Samuel Aby (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 just seems to be full of problems. Couldn't do a BLP prod as it technically has refs. Anyway I can't find notability (IMDB has his name as Aby Samuel instead btw) He only seem to actually have done 1 film so far. This also seems to be original research. Wgolf (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Promotional article. Deb (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Even though promotionalism can be addressed by editing. Subject is not notable A7 applies. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RetroVision

RetroVision (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)

Run-of-the-mill. Not enough reliable significant coverage; a majority of the existing sources mostly come from music blogs and artist biographies. I could only find one other source here describing a record label contract, but even then that won't be enough to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 15:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy E. Punke

Timothy E. Punke (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. This article was already deleted once and the creator just added the middle initial to get around the previous deletion, so may even be a case of speedy deletion. We should also WP:SALT for good measure. GPL93 (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing here is so "inherently" notable as to exempt him from actually having to pass WP:GNG, but none of the sources are getting him past GNG — it's referenced to a mix of primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people, not to coverage that's substantively about him. Wikipedia is not a place where professional anythings are entitled to repost their résumés just because they exist: the basis for inclusion in Wikipedia is not the things the article says, but the quality of the referencing that the article uses to support what it says, and none of the references here are cutting it. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria, poor sources. Spyder212 (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another run of the mill lobbyist. Fails my standards for notable lawyers. Bearian (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wilderness Journeys

Wilderness Journeys (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 fails WP:N There doesn't appear to be much in the way of sources regarding the notability of this company, which is no longer operating. Angryskies (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ezra Zask

Ezra Zask (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)

Almost entirely unsourced, promotional biography of a non-notable stockbroker. The only independent, non-spammy coverage is of his conviction for possession of child pornography (funnily enough this fact is buried at the bottom of the article). But if we stripped it back to that, it would fall afoul of WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. – Joe (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Terrible sourcing except for the crime. I'd add that other than the conviction, he's a run of the mill broker. Bearian (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 15:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack D. Schwager

Jack D. Schwager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, promotional biography of a non-notable stockbroker. – Joe (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 15:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

María Alejandra López

María Alejandra López (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:ANYBIO, lacks any references. Whilst a winner of a national beauty pageant (see WP:1EVENT) but failed to place at international level. No other significant achievements- fails WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - won the national title and competed at an international level at one of the "big 4" international beauty pageants. As in sports, participating in the premier international competition indicates notability. MurielMary (talk) 11:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete attempts to establish "big four" competition as default grounds for notability have been consistently rejected in multiple long running discussions of beauty pageant notability. The sourcing here is not enough to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. There is no policy or guideline that states that all contestants in a beauty pageant are by default notable. The only other time Ms. Lopez has made the news since her participation is for a six-month relationship with an Ecuadorean actor [10], which is not lasting news. Richard3120 (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Beauty pageant contestants are not automatically notable, short substantive independent coverage. Reywas92Talk 04:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 15:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Internet induced climate change

Internet induced climate change (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)

While the cited sources to support the fact that data centres are hugely contributing to energy use, and thus to climate change, none apart from the last one recognise "internet-induced climate change" as a distinct topic. As such this article as it stands is only WP:SOAPBOXing for the Knowing Buddha Organization. Paul_012 (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - very poor sources to support the claim, and this "Internet induced climate change" seems to be quite unknown to the Internet as well... Spyder212 (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - None of the sources are about the supposed "Internet induced climate change." As a result, the article violates WP:SYNTH and also violates WP:FRINGE because the only actual usage of the term "Internet induced climate change" is by a so-called "meditation master" who claims to have had visions of the future. The creator of the article is also a blocked sockpuppet. DraconicDark (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 15:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Islands national under-18 futsal team

Solomon Islands national under-18 futsal team (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 page seems to not be notable as of Wikipedia:GNG. I also going to add these pages for similar reasons.

Thanks for understanding. Matt294069 (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 08:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should they all be redirected to national futsal team pages or not? Govvy (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Existence of a youth team is not automatic notability, no substantive sources establishing it. Don't see the need for a redirect but whatever. Reywas92Talk 04:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. --Randykitty (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Henry Lesch

George Henry Lesch (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 one only has one reference. Being president of and CEO of Colgate-Palmolive is certainly a big deal, but without *multiple* independent sources, I don't think he is sufficient notable. Happy if you prove me wrong. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - added a few books and web sources. Believe there would be more "print sources" out there pre-internet era. Pass GNG. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets general notability criteria, secondary sources available. Spyder212 (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which secondary sources? All I see is the one New York Times Obit. We need at least one more. I don't understand how footnotes 3 and 4 of this version are reliable for the subject or add to notability. I don't even see where either mention the subject. Maybe I am missing something. Are they the correct links? --David Tornheim (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He was the chairman and CEO of a major corporation for well over a decade, plus a New York Times obituary practically establishes notability all on its own. His heyday was in the pre-internet era, so it's not too surprising that online sources are scarce. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty more reliable secondary sources are available here. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That convinces me. I can withdraw now if anyone requests. I do agree with everyone that there should be plenty of WP:RS on him. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would requst that you withdraw. I don't think there's any point in continuing this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Do you have the link with the instructions? I saw it recently. I know it is speedy keep. Just now sure where it is. I will look. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I found it here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Procedure_for_non-administrator_close_(nominator_withdrawal) --David Tornheim (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A true captain of industry, as President and CEO of one of the best-known companies in history for over 13 years. Wikipedia is not limited to a google search: business moguls are notable even if they retired before 1995. Even on-internet sources, if one expands their search past google, are considerable. For instance, a search of newspapers.com comes up with a large number of articles with significant coverage of Lesch's actions as the head of C-P. Lesch easily meets GNG.Jacona (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I am surprised there aren't more references, but his CEO days were pre-internet. CEO of a very major corporation and I have to believe he received plenty of coverage during that time. Forbes cover and NYT obit confirm notability.Sandals1 (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 15:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Swieringa

Robert J. Swieringa (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)

Although he is published, I'm not convinced he meets the requirements. The sourcing in the article which has been around since 2008 is unimpressive. I did do a before Google search and didn't see enough that convinced me he is sufficiently notable in his field. Perhaps he is. Convince me... --David Tornheim (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as a dean Dean of the S.C. Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell Universit, suject passes NACADEMIC#6 notability requirement. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. NACADEMIC#6 says:
The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
I do not believe he meets the standard. I believe the "highest-level" would be the President of Cornell, not just a dean, which is defined by our article for deans in the U.S. (Dean_(education)#Higher_education) to be a department head--which is my understanding as well, a bit like a VP in a corporation. There are numerous deans in every major academic institution, and I doubt all of warrant an article. Are there others that survived an AfD only on the grounds that they were deans where there were not multiple WP:RS to back them up? (or vice-versa?) --David Tornheim (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a few refs. As normal, not many sources could be found for an academic as compared to a mainstream player/entertainers and yet their contribution is well-regarded. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I would withdrawal nomination, but I'm not sure those qualify as independent WP:RS, so I'll let others assess the overall WP:RS situation. I generally agree that big-named mainstream sports players, comics, movie stars, etc. probably get more coverage in the mainstream media than the workhorses of academia who make long-lasting contributions to knowledge. That said, I'm not convinced this particular individual did much other that hold positions of power, teach, and do some editing. "An outstanding teacher and lecturer, Swieringa won the Justice Foundation Award for Outstanding Teaching at Cornell and has received numerous awards and honors in recognition of his scholarly and professional work" [11] may be the case, but I am not seeing independent sources that talk at length about the accomplishments, innovation, etc. He just seems like an typical person of that rank with nothing that distinguishes him above and beyond the ordinary person of that position. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are reliable sources (RS) but might not be independent sources (IS), you dont find many IS for academic, how often do you see New York Times or Guardian newspaper have an article about the president of University of Penn State, or University of Sydney or National University of Singapore? Hardly, as they are not normal mainstream topics that interest the general public but you would see articles about "What is so funny about Gangnam Style"[12] or "cat rescue story" [13]. When it come to an academic, at times independent source might not applied in AfD. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • True. Academics--except the most exceptional, or self-promoting (e.g. Neil_deGrasse_Tyson, Carl Sagan, Bill Nye, Watson and Crick) or unique (e.g. Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein) or interesting (e.g. Richard Feynman)) [and strange that nearly all the examples that come to mind are from physics and astrophysics]--are rarely covered in mainstream media, but they are covered in review articles, journal articles, and books about their field, that are independent of the scholar and the institution that pays their salary. There's plenty out there on academics who have made major contributions to thought. When it comes to "What is so funny about Gangnam Style"[14] that's just a trend, and the way I see it, it's more about a fad that makes money for the entertainment industry than about anything of real substance--just a passing trend. When I first came to Wikipedia, I was surprised the mainstream media was taken so seriously as a source compared to the academic sources that have more substance, fact checking, editorial overview, and writers who are experts in the field of their subject. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • A review of his work on Google Scholar indicates his articles have been cited hundreds of times and published in the top accounting journals, such as the Journal of Accounting Research.H.al-shawaf (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • To that end, I added a list of some of his most cited works (per Google Scholar) to the page. As background, the FASB only invites one academic to the Board for any term. Academics on the board are pretty well respected for their achievements. He certainly comes off as an above-average academic.H.al-shawaf (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Definitely meets notability criteria as per WP:NACADEMIC. Spyder212 (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. One possibly could try to make a case for passing WP:PROF on other grounds here, but he definitely does not satisfy WP:PROF#C6. There is an explicit explanation on this very point in WP:PROF#Specific criteria notes regarding Criterion 6: "Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g., being a Provost of a major university may sometimes qualify)." So being a Dean is definitely not sufficient. Nsk92 (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the case a bit more closely, it seems clear that he does pass WP:PROF on other grounds. E.g. his Dean appointment at Cornel was a named position, as "the Anne and Elmer Lindseth Dean", according to the original announcement[15]; and he is currently listed at Cornell as a "Anne and Elmer Lindseth Dean Emeritus" in his faculty profile there. Arguably, that satisfies WP:PROF#C5. Also, his CV at Cornell[16] list a number of journal editorships, and a significant number of named/distinguished lectures. Looks sufficient to satisfy WP:PROF#C1. The article could use some updating, though. Nsk92 (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets notability criteria. Important enough in accounting policy circles to be a member of the Financial Accounting Standards Board from 1986-96 and to be on the board of GE. He has also taught at the leading U.S. business schools.H.al-shawaf (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 15:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Siegel

Sheldon Siegel (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 has been tagged for almost a year for having zero sources. Nothing has been done to provide any. I'm not convinced the author is notable. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pirtua, pirtua

Pirtua, pirtua (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 film. Of sources provided, one is regarding the filmmaker, and merely mentions his newest film in the first line. The only other is from Elonet, which is a DATABASE of Finnish films which does nothing for notable, same with IMDB external link. I don't see anything establishing notability for this film. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Proquest news archive search comes up absolutely blank. Film is already included in list of a dozen non-notable films on page of filmmaker Visa Mäkinen. Thereis nothing here to merge.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Elonet is a database and probably lists every movie and actor in Finland, but it also has some information about this movie and it quotes three reviews from three national newspapers/magazines. Unfortunately it's probably impossible to find the reviews online so I don't know how long they are. It seems it was also reviewed in the film magazine Filmihullu, but that's not online either [17]. Elonet also quotes an interview about making of the movie prior to the release, but again it's impossible to find it now. Also according to Elonet, the film was released on DVD in 2009 and 2017. -kyykaarme (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is evidence given above that the film has been reviewed in four national newspapers and magazines which means it passes WP:NFILM but those sources are not easily found online so it needs Finnish editors to expand the article with offline sources Atlantic306 (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How can we verify these sources exist? ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, after looking further, as per Kyykaarme, NFILM requires "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." The article shows the film sold 1 650 tickets, which would go against "widely distributed." Further, no evidence that these are "full-length" reviews, and NFILM requires both. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG can be passed separately from WP:NFILM and if the reviews are in national newspapers they are likely to be sig cov Atlantic306 (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to find the sources as we can't keep on assertions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Goodness knows why this was relisted for a second time, as by then consensus was clear. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles G. Hall

Charles G. Hall (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)

Not notable and poorly sourced. Being nominated for a Pulitzer prize does not make you notable, winning it does. Rusf10 (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - most longtime and award winning journalists are encyclopedic. This article passes WP:CCPOL and is, in my opinion, encyclopedic. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This person does not meet the notability criteria outlined at WP:CREATIVE, so this article should be deleted. Qono (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hall received the award, television photographer of the year for the central region, by the NPPA among other awards which seems to satisfy #1 and #4, no? Smmurphy(Talk) 21:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. The policy says "widely cited" and "significant critical attention". This award does not satisfy either criteria. Qono (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I don't believe the awards he received show automatic notability and I'm not seeing coverage that meets the GNG (in my opinion).Sandals1 (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the extensiveness of coverage - the vast majority of newspapers.com articles on searches of "Pat Hall" focusing on the states he worked during his career are about him or his work, such as the 115 results searching Wyoming between 1961 and 1976"pat+hall"&dr_year=1961-1976&offset=22&p_place=WY. Many of these hits are about his reportage, although none of the magazines he worked at in Wyoming are indexed during that period. During the period 1972-1976 he was primarily not working as a journalist, but as a director of bicentennial celebrations in the Midwest/Mountain West. Here are 83 hits from Wyoming during that period, mostly about that work [18]. A large number of those 83 articles are not merely quotes of Hall, but are discussions of his operations and activities. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 17:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lubbad85: In what sense is it "not GNG". It is sourced to a dozen RS over 50 years about the subject and his accomplishments. Sorry to ask but I'm genuinely curious. Smmurphy(Talk) 12:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since this was relisted, I'm adding it to the history discussions list as his role in bicentenial celebrations (as regional commission chair and state committee director) might be of interest there. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PureVPN

PureVPN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't see how this ill-written bit of corporate spam meets our notability requirements for companies. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The text seems neutral and the references seem adequate. The fact that an article describes a commercial service does not make it spam. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hate it when people nominate an article for deletion and then contest every keep reason, however reasonable – so I try to avoid doing it myself. I'm going to make an exception here: Eastmain, would you care to address the rationale for deletion, that the page does not meet our notability requirements for companies? Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The in-depth reviews by reliable sources such as MacUpdate and PCMAG establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MILL and WP:NOTDIR. There is nothing about this company or their article, beyond the basic concept of a VPN, that is at all either technically significant, commercially significant or WP:Notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eastmain, the references establish notability. Mosaicberry (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It initially twiggesd my mind ... PureVPN ... I think I've heard of that before (but I could equally be mixed up with something else). It seems to have large market share and has sustained but the choices for the reception section may not be neutral (and they were sloppy, no access date, not archived, url's swapped, one probably non neutral, not sure if the other (CNET) had actually reviewed from using the product rather than taking info from the website). Other reviews techradar 2018, PCmag 2018 comparitech, The Best VPN (2019) (possibly not RS and possibly negative POV) perhaps paint a more balanced picture. So it seems there are about 78 VPN products and we not would expect a wikipedia article for each. That said PureVPN has WP:SUSTAINED, has about 2000 VPN servers (About 3rd or 4th here), and is headquartered in Asia so an article may well be warranted. But it really needs to be beefed with a few more details and WP:NPOV probably needs to be tagged or to be sorted.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So if I'm the world's third or fourth busiest cat shampooer and pig polisher, that passes WP:N? Is this a bye to WP:NOTDIR for the biggest? The biggest three? The biggest seven? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say there's a number of factors that count ... but in general bigger is better ... however smaller and innovative qualifies also. What I am sure of is a smaller VPN with a low value article is definitely to be let go. To a degree linux distro's are kind of on the similar basis. I'm currently more concerned about WP:NPOV if this gets kept which it may well do. An enhanced article on this would probably be well worth keeping due to sustained history and various impplications.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Linux distros generally vary in some technical manner, which is at least "encyclopedic", even if not primarily WP:Notable by the necessarily rather arbitrary local rules. We do sometimes lose track of being an encyclopedia (it explains things that are complicated) and become too much of a directory of the "otherwise significant", despite WP:NOTDIR. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a VPN geek, but there do appear to be differences in Capabilities etc. And choice of VPN may be important for peoples in Asia / Russia where censorship and Privacy may be an issue. As PureVPN is based from Hong Kong (People's Republic of China) that may have implications long term. Does this article link into these things .... currently no. Could it ... perhaps .... All a bit of a pig really. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Remove from the list of sources all of those that make money from that review and we do not have something that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Explore the links a little more -- they're affiliate links. That's part of why VPNs and other similar services get so many reviews -- it's not just consumer interest; it's kickbacks. Could they still be neutral reviews? Sure, but how can we tell? If there's an affiliate link in there, I don't think we can consider it independent. Eastmain above specifically referenced MacUpdate and PCMAG. MacUpdate is... far, far, far from acceptable. Far from an "in-depth review from a reliable source," It's basically a copy/pasted list of features from the company itself. PCMag has, bigger than everything else at the top, the logo and three affiliate links. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is an entirely generic business listing, not notable in any manner. scope_creepTalk 22:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MILL. Thanks Rhododendrites for the excellent expose of the poor quality sources. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added after reading more votes: Agree 100% with Andy's comments about "cat shampooer and pig polisher"s, and Pavlor's comment "looks like a cheap ad" (even though the latter voted the other way). ☆ Bri (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Poladian, Charles (2018-09-06). "PureVPN review: Even limited Netflix access can't save this buggy VPN". Mashable. Archived from the original on 2019-04-22. Retrieved 2019-04-22.

      The article contains a list of criticisms about PureVPN in sections titled "Waiting for a connection", "Not so fast", "Netflix works (sort of)", and "privacy concerns".

    2. Eddy, Max (2017-10-11). "Did PureVPN Cross a Line When It Disclosed User Information? When a VPN hands over user data on a creep, there's a freak out". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2019-04-22. Retrieved 2019-04-22.

      This article contains commentary about whether PureVPN crossed the line when it gave user data to the FBI. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage notes that "deep coverage" provides "commentary" of the company.

    3. Nadel, Brian (2017-10-10). "PureVPN Review: Looks Good, Acts Bad". Tom's Guide. Purch Group. Retrieved 2019-04-22.

      The article contains a negative review of PureVPN, noting:

      Of the VPN services we've reviewed, PureVPN has the largest choice of connection locations, but it doesn't always deliver the data. Despite having widely distributed servers and excellent software, PureVPN delivered far from top-rank performance, and a recently disclosed criminal case makes us wonder how willing PureVPN is to protect customer privacy. Overall, we prefer Private Internet Access.

    4. Paul, Ian (2017-08-25). "PureVPN review: It works well if you don't mind virtual server locations. PureVPN is a Hong Kong-based VPN that's recently been criticized for using virtual server locations". PC World. Archived from the original on 2019-04-22. Retrieved 2019-04-22.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow PureVPN to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some of the articles such as https://www.pcworld.com/article/3219730/purevpn-vpn-review.html contain Google Ads including those from PureVPN to make money from users accessing their content. I do not think these links make the articles unreliable or non-independent because these ads are selected by Google without input from PureVPN.

    I do not consider affiliate links to make a source non-independent. The PCMag article linked by Eastmain (which is different from the one I am linking) notes: "PCMag reviews products independently, but we may earn affiliate commissions from buying links on this page. Terms of use." The PCMag.com Mission Statement notes: "Editorial reviews and conclusions are crafted without any personal, advertising, marketing or other business considerations."

    The negative coverage about PureVPN's slowness, usage of virtual locations, and user privacy concerns clearly demonstrates that it is being critically reviewed and commented on by publications without consideration to revenue from affiliate links.

    Cunard (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment on sources - Literally all of the sources above are to reviews (or, in one case, an "opinions" page linking to a review) based on affiliate links. Of course all of the publications talk about being independent. For the sake of argument, let's even give them the benefit of the doubt and say that, against odds, they take a perfectly neutral approach to the review. That doesn't change the fact that the opportunity to build in affiliate links provides motivation for the very initiation of such a review. In other words, while their independence may lead them to review it honestly, that they're reviewing it at all (the most important thing for notability) is tainted by the great likelihood of ulterior motives. It's why VPNs have such an easy time getting so many reviews. Frankly, Cunard, I don't know why you're using your considerable source-finding talents to save an article about something where the most interesting thing we can say about it is "it's subpar." Reaffirming this as a definite delete. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am supporting retention because PureVPN has received significant coverage in reliable sources, and I do not think affiliate links make the sources non-independent or unusable for notability given that they have provided plenty of negative coverage about the subject. Software review publications like PC Magazine and PC World also have print editions that do not have affiliate links. Software review sites in general have affiliate links because that helps them generate revenue. If they were all excluded, then nearly all reputable review sites would be unusable for establishing notability.

    Why am I supporting retention? I believe there is value to the readers in providing an article that summarizes sources explaining how PureVPN is subpar.

    Cunard (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But no version of this article, either now or when it was rather longer at the start of April, has "explained how PureVPN is subpar". Instead it has all been anodyne corporate woffle. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is capable of improvement, it may have been subject to sabotage by a COI editor, when I used a Wikipedia Geolocate from ANI on an IP address that was the VPN offering that caame up as an advertisement (which actually to me immediately means I will always avoid it!). Wish I had more time to tackle it. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article reads like an advertisement, and any references go to reviews, not sources that indicate it is a particularly notable VPN. Having used PureVPN in the past, I can't say I found it particularly different than other VPNs, so I don't think this article has much potential to begin referencing something notable unless something changes about PureVPN. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will review these sources later, but judging by headlines posted by Cunard, these could support notability quite well. Unlike editors above, I find good reviews as an excellent source for software/hardware related Wikipedia articles. However, these sources should be really used in the article, it looks like a cheap ad otherwise (boasting how this VPN is good, when sources have other POV...). Pavlor (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mashable, Tom's Guide, PC Magazine, PC World are good sources showing notability of this product/service. Sources like The Inquirer are pure garbage (written by the company itself...) and should have no place in the article (at least not without proper attribution). If anybody improves (balances) the article by writing anew the entire reception section, I will gladly "vote" keep. However, I will not touch an article created and refbombed as a vehicle for promotion - too new and fresh for my taste (I may change my mind and TNT it myself, if the article is kept). Pavlor (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Silly second vote deleted ☆ Bri (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Call me stupid ... I had not looked carefully at this article ... but the history simply doesn't look consistent. It looks as though the page was recreated on 5 April 2019 and perhaps other history added. There's no sign of the talk page which was deleted in November 2018. I might perform a rescue (and I've really tried to stay away from this one) but I want a clear picture of what has happened. Otherwise this might be off to DRV.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC) OK I found a history....[reply]
18:41, 5 April 2019 Justlettersandnumbers (talk | contribs) restored page PureVPN (92 revisions) (restore earlier history) (thank)
09:00, 21 December 2018 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted page PureVPN (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (TW)) (thank)
13:07, 8 February 2017 Deb (talk | contribs) deleted page PureVPN (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11) (thank)
@Justlettersandnumbers ... Can you give an expanded explanation of how this came here and why the talk page was not restored. I apologise I am not on a device I can collate a lot of stuff in one go? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Also as far as I can tell Marialinda94 was not informed of the AfD ? Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thankyou Justlettersandnumbers for rematerializing the talk page. I can now put a NPOV on the article which I should have done weeks ago .... Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) All of that is correct, Djm-leighpark. It was created, tagged and deleted on 8 February 2017, created again within an hour or so by an obvious UPE editor, deleted as G11 on 21 December 2018, re-created on 5 April 2019. I undeleted the previous history to make it visible; I didn't undelete the previous history of the talk-page as there wasn't one, but have now done so – I'm afraid it adds nothing much to this discussion. The whole history of the article is visible to all, there are no deleted edits. If you have other questions, fire away! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point – the notification went to Mehmood Hanif. Now remedied. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just didn't get all this from your nomination and this has influenced my discussions and I am now feeling a right plonker. At this point I want a relist for due to the irregularities. If closer wishes a keep thats fair enough and if a delete I want a userfication so its me who reworks this back into mainspace ... because it doubtless will be re-appearing one way or another and I'd prefer to neutralize the article (my workload is stacking ...) with its history or it will reappear as PureVPN (software) or something. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - FYI it seems like there's some disagreement about the extent to which kickbacks via affiliate links should affect our evaluation of the reliability of a source. As such, I've opened a thread at RSN here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_sources_that_put_affiliate_links_in_their_reviews. I've not linked in the other direction just to err on the side of caution since I've !voted here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is spreadsheet doing the rounds at the moment which contains roughly the details of 300-500 odd VPN providers and reflects almost exactly what the trade magazines are reporting. Reams and reams of VPN's providers have appeared in the last 10 years and they are the most part, entirely generic. The sources offered by Cunard are generic. They are mix non-RS review's and run of the mill trade affiliate news failing WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creepTalk 00:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I´m a little bit puzzled here. Which of the sources Cunard posted are non-RS reviews and which are run of the mill trade affiliate news? I thought webpages in question have editorial oversight, so may qualify as a RS. Pavlor (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Pavlor:} References 1,2 and 4 are reviews. There are always for the most part done by one person. Occasionally, e.g if it a camera, the body will be reviewed by a one person and specialist outfit with the lens, e.g the dxo mark outfit. This is not like that. So for almost all reviews and that is majority are done by one person, which means they are subjective and are non-RS. The last reference originally appeared in The Register, a British outfit. So it is affiliate news. VPN companies are for the most part generic. You can set one up yourself fairly easily and there is not much difference between them. every one of them is using the same four protocols. A large number of them are good, a large number of them are bad. Many hundreds don't keep logs, many hundreds do. The only differentiator is generally how good their support and using real server locations. So there is not much to differentiate them. We should keep the biggest and the best, but for the most part this one is neither. cTalk 07:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@scope_creep from memory of a reference I understand this to be one of the bigger and most sustained ones ... however I would be concerned about best given from appear to be hands on reviews, which is why I've POV'd it. Who would you regard as the bigger ones. There's also appears to be some geographically local popular niche ones, Gom VPN for example. I'd really like this discused at project level I think rather than a drip feed.08:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Your point about reviews is a nonsense. For us, most important is, if the page in question has regular staff, how rigorous is its editorial policy and how perceived is by other sources we consider reliable. We certainly should not care, if subject of the article is the biggest and the best or not, only its coverage in reliable sources matters. We must ask: Are the sources mentioned by Cunard reliable? The answer is yes. Is the coverage broad enough to establish notability of the article subject? This is the very point we should discuss, not some artificial "policy" about VPNs. Pavlor (talk) 10:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Due to concerns expressed with regards to retention for articles of this class of product I raised a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing#Retention of VPN Products. Thankyou.
  • Delete. Most of the references are to industry-specific publications, so fail WP:AUD. The article itself if just a listing of trivia factoids. For example, "Manual setup installation guides are available on its official Support platform". If somebody felt the need to mention that in an encyclopedia article, that's an indication of just how little there is to say. Most of the rest of the article is generic descriptions common to all VPNs. There's a VPN that provides end-to-end encryption? Really? -- RoySmith (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Commitment (EP)

The Commitment (EP) (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)

Can find no evidence that this album received significant and reliable coverage, with only the usual retail/streaming and self-promotional sites to be found. There is a bare AllMusic entry but no review. Note that the rapper's following album "The Commitment 2" got a few pro reviews that are likely to come up in a search for this earlier album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The man himself has 28m plays on Spotify, so I think his music is notable. Solid Keep. scope_creepTalk 20:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You just argued that the guy is notable, which has not been disputed. This discussion is about one particular album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Scope_creep, I was going to leave you a message to explain what notability means on Wikipedia, but I see you have 44k edits. Perhaps you aren't terribly active at AfD (can't say I'd blame you), but Spotify plays, Youtube plays, followers, subscribers, etc. don't factor into determinations of notability at all. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / Redirect to the main Cadet page. I can't find any in-depth coverage at all about this subject. There are a few sentences in articles about him (obituaries, mostly, sadly), but nothing about this album beyond that. We need a few solid reviews in reliable, independent publications for a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then redirect to the artist's page. No in-depth coverage of this particular piece of music, meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Neither of the keep !votes is based on actual policy.Onel5969 TT me 15:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The artist has proved himself via Youtube views and also the media as outlined by TwinTurbo and scope_creep. Thus, my view is to keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FakeMaknae (talk • contribs) 17:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another vote based on the musician and not the album, and with an incorrect reading of notability policies. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Elizabeth of the Hill Country Catholic Church

Saint Elizabeth of the Hill Country Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability for local parish, all content and sources are from their own website or the local diocese's. The best independent source I found is that priests here have abused teenages. Reywas92Talk 22:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the abuse thing. All that I could find was a single news article, single accuser. Not follow up coverage, no indication of an investigation, arrest , trial or anything - just an accusation. Not enough info to add to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - updated Navbox for Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte since St.Elizabeth is a member parish; added See also section. Article improvements to better integrate into Wikipedia. Tag for more footnotes and search suggestions on Talk page. JoeHebda (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This strikes me as a NN local church. Furthermore, since service times are listed, the article would require maintenance, which it might not get. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously service times should be deleted, as should any telephone numbers (not present) or post office mail box addresses etc. Assuming that is done, then I take it User:Peterkingiron's !vote should be interpreted as "Keep". :) --Doncram (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep that fact that St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church (Lenoir, North Carolina) began as a mission church of Saint Elizabeth's adds notability. As does the fact that Saint's Elizabeth's operates the Church of the Epiphany as a seasonal, mission church in historic Blowing Rock, North Carolina. In addition to local sources, there is an article in a national, Jewish magazine, Moment (magazine), discussing the fact that Saint Elizabeth's lends its sanctuary every year to the local Jewish community for High Holiday services, going so far as to permanently install a Star of David in a window to make the Jewish worshippers feel more comfortable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, there is a good deal of local coverage about the church's hosting/sponsorship of non-sacred touring musical groups and events.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Willthacheerleader18 An image of the charming, stone, Gothic-revival mission/summer church in Blowing Rock, North Carolina would be an excellent addition to the page ( I recall that you're in Carolina).E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blowing Rock is a couple of hours away from where I live, but I may be able to get someone I know to find/take a picture of it. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per its role in establishing churches in an area where this particular denomination is not that common.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tour security

Tour security (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced and tagged for notability for the last decade. Mccapra (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just unsourced/OR material. Nothing to retain. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article may be unsourced, but it does not say anything terribly controversial and is more than a dicdef. It plainly is sourcable with entire books written on the subject, for instance Celebrity Protection and Touring. There is also All Access: The Secrets of Tour Security although self-published, the author, Todd Fox, appears to be well known in the industry and may pass WP:SPS as a recognised expert previously published in the security field, for instance this article in Military Review. SpinningSpark 21:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Spinningspark explains the matter well. AfD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment well I guess I could post an article on ‘egg-boiling’ or ‘driving at night’ that would not say anything controversial and have sources, but I’m not sure it would be encyclopaedic. Mccapra (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unsourced for the past decade or so; definition seems to vary quite a lot over the Internet; could probably be much better explained in the context of security services in general... Spyder212 (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Foxy Production

Foxy Production (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 for a gallery that shows a lot of notable artists. The gallery itself is not notable though, as SIGCOV does not exist and WP:NOTINHERITED. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article's gallery is mentioned in a number of articles in Bloomberg News, specifically [19] and [20]. It's publications also have reviews in the New York Times [21], and the gallery was the subject of a New Art Dealers Alliance interview with the founder about the importance of galleries [22]. The article in question should definitely be cleaned up to meet the standards of other Wikipedia articles, but I wouldn't go so far as to claim the subject as non-notable. Userqio (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You give four sources. The first two total five sentences. The last is an interview, which is not really an independent source. I included the New York times article on Sascha Braunig in the article on her, because I just created it! But it is about Braunig and not the gallery. (Researching Braunig, who is very notable, was how I found Foxy Productions). So really there is no SIGCOV here to establish notability. Happy to be persuaded otherwise.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure how a contemporary art gallery could even establish notability since they're not likely to be the subject of a conventional article, since the only "product" they produce is other people's work and they are not old enough to appear in most history books. If I had an idea of what page to merge to, I would suggest a merge. But since I don't I'm not entirely sure. If we were to treat the gallery like a person, it might pass WP:ARTIST through the combination of all of the work that it's helped publish. But using that rhetoric almost seems like WP:ORGSIG, so unless someone else wants to comment on this I'll be striking my !vote out. Userqio (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed numerous times at Afd, and it comes down to the fact that the notability guidelines are not set up for this kind of organization. The be notable you have to have detailed SIGCOV, and very few galleries except for the very large and famous ones have that.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet our revised WP:NCORP guideline (and probably didn't meet the old one either). The Australian "Broadsheet" article does have some in-depth coverage, but – surprise, surprise! – is a "dispatch" supplied by "John Thomson of Foxy Production". As discussed in innumerable past deletion nominations, the notability of the product or merchandise (here, works by various artists) is not "inherited" by the trader or merchant. As for the notability of the artists, several of those listed are blue-linked because User:Artentries created pages for them, without any adequate sourcing, but rigorously complete with "(S)he is represented by Foxy Production in New York". I have prodded Jimmy Baker (American artist), Simone Gilges, Ester Partegàs, Michael Bell-Smith and Violet Hopkins as non-notable COI creations, am still looking at Hany Armanious and Olga ChernyshevaJustlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Justlettersandnumbers: I removed the PROD from all of these articles; None of these are uncontroversial, thus a PROD is incorrect. I also reverted your redirects on Jessica Ciocci and Jacob Ciocci. If you want to bring them here to AFD you are welcome to.--Theredproject (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tsunami solutions

Tsunami solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I put this up as a PROD which was contested. The original author (and somebody possibly associated with them, who has only edited this page and the original author's sandbox) added additional references. However it still appears to firmly fail WP:GNG and WP:CORP. The independent sources are largely references in passing, covering the "lone worker" industry generally and mentioning this company as one of several vendors. The OHSCanada reference appears to be a press release. There simply don't appear to be adequate sources available to get this to encyclopedic notability. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NCORP. Not to be confused with this one. There's nothing that comes close to WP:ORGCRIT.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article cites several sources, but none of them are in depth nor signficant enough to meet WP:NCORP; indeed, the vast majority concern an unrelated piece of Canadian legislation.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A nice middle to small company with no notability, Wikipedia is not a phonebook. And as above. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet notability criteria, poor sources. Spyder212 (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a small BC software company with 100 buyers is unlikely to meet notability requirements. In this case, per the nominator, it didn't do so. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple independent sources cite Tsunami as one of the top three suppliers of lone worker monitoring in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G4mb10r (talk • contribs) 01:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, G4mb10r. You seem to have only edited this page and no others. That is a little odd, what is up? Also best to defend the page using Wikipedia's rules on notability (WP:GNG and WP:CORP). (Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tham Kuen Wei

Tham Kuen Wei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe this individual meets WP:GNG since the existing sources don't meet the requirements on significant coverage, and I have not been able to find any other sources. He definitely doesn't meet WP:NPROF despite the praise heaped upon his accomplishments in the article - he is pretty much a run-of-the-mill economist, albeit apparently a talented one. The award mentioned in the first sentence of the article is not notable outside the immediate context of that university, as seen in this source. bonadea contributions talk 10:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 10:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 10:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 10:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The comment below was posted to the AfD talk page, so I copied it over. --bonadea contributions talk 19:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I am a Chinese reporter based in Ipoh. This man is quite a legend within Malaysians as he is young but manage to ease the property bubble aside to bring a khazanah grant recipient and also the royal education award. Khazanah is Malaysia's sovereign wealth fund and you had to be super genius to secure a research grant from them that is of national interest. Sometimes these type of intellectuals are hidden and it is good to put them out. I can assure you if not all, then most of the real estate industry and practitioners in malaysia know this man. Ask any Malaysians who is in the property Junthree (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes these type of intellectuals are hidden Yes - that's why Wikipedia has special notability guidelines for academics, found here, and Tham Kuen Wei does not appear to meet any of those criteria. Any academic knows that getting a research grant is a big deal :-) however, it does not make a person encyclopedically notable. Unfortunately there is so much promotional hype in the article that it is difficult to see what the real claims to notability are - I can't see that there are any such claims at the moment. --bonadea contributions talk 19:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am a Chinese reporter based in Ipoh A few years back when you repeatedly recreated the article about this person's father (to the point where it was protected against recreation), you claimed to be Malaysian. Just saying. --bonadea contributions talk 10:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea: erm, he wrote "I am from Malaysia" in that post, which is consistent since the Malaysian Chinese are the largest ethnic group in Ipoh. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 04:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But why would they make a reference to their ethnicity, of all things? I read the statement above as "even though I am a foreign citizen who is temporarily stationed in Malaysia I have heard of this person", which is not a valid argument for notability but would at least make sense. Maybe I misinterpreted it. -bonadea contributions talk 06:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My limited understanding is that ethnic identity in Malaysia is more delineated than in a lot of Western countries (eg: see Bumiputera (Malaysia), [26], [27] etc). Someone who describes themselves as Chinese could be a recent immigrant or could have ancesters who immigrated within the last few generations or could be someone with centuries of ancestry in the region. In this case, "Chinese reporter" is really a claim of some measure of experience/expertise in the domain of newsworthy Ipoh/MalaysianChinese people (it's not uncommon to see AFD comments where the poster states that they are from a particular location and/or work in a relevant field). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 07:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to the guidelines "However, academics, in the sense of the above definition, may also work outside academia (e.g., in industry, financial sector, government, as a clinical physician, as a practicing lawyer, etc.) and their primary job does not need to be academic in nature if they are known for their academic achievements. " There is a link in the article itself that pointed out his research. https://thepropertytimes.my/2016/05/18/real-estate-expert-found-cause-of-malaysian-bubble-prompt-government-to-take-action/

There are more newspaper publications and papers including the ones attached earlier in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junthree (talk • contribs) 19:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep This person may not be an Albert Einstein but he is well known in Malaysia within the real estate field, which helped to discover policies in reducing risks of non performing loans. I also found some details of the Royal Education Award "Significant development and contribution to country's progress and development", and i found some proof that he is indeed the recipient in more than 3 major news media including the News Straits Times Press and The Star, both major newspapers in Malaysia with over a million readers daily [1] [2] [3].

[4]§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chessrepublic (talk • contribs) 07:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Chessrepublic (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.pressreader.com/malaysia/new-straits-times/20170111/281509340874187
  2. ^ https://www.pressreader.com/malaysia/the-star-malaysia/20161023/283089888687495
  3. ^ https://thepropertytimes.my/2015/02/07/real-estate-economist-awarded-rare-fast-track-for-phd-by-university-of-malaya/
  4. ^ https://thepropertytimes.my/2016/05/18/real-estate-expert-found-cause-of-malaysian-bubble-prompt-government-to-take-action/
Nobody has disputed the fact that he received the award, but unless an award is itself notable according to Wikipedias definition of notability, it doesn't make the recipient notable. Of the four references you list here, the The Star reference above only mentions the person's name (not significant coverage), and the three others are already in the article so that doesn't change anything in the original deletion rationale. What is your own connection to Tham Kuen Wei? --bonadea contributions talk 09:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had a look. The prize [28] is for really smart PHD graduates. The prize is not notable to Wikipedia at the moment, although a article could be created, it is a royal awards, and prize articles on Wikipedia are atrocious. There is some coverage for two things, one the prize and two the details discovering mechanisms in place of housing supply in Malaysia. The references are chronic, non-rs, press releases, dead refs and article itself is promotional. He is only 23, so not a noted economist at the moment. Very smart guy and working as a lecturer. Very early days, possibly WP:TOOSOON. scope_creepTalk 09:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide some of the sources you found, since other editors have not been able to find significant independent coverage. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the entire discussion and the merits of the article should not be judged slowly on the award alone, but what policies he had introduced and changed in the malaysia real estate industry.

On one of the links by the property times - "The Malaysian government and Khazanah Nasional, sponsored Tham on a research to pursue indepth analysis into the matter. Tham suggested policies on rising of real property gain taxes to curb speculation, and lowering of the goods and services taxes to ease inflation and increase purchasing power to enhance loan repayments. According to a government spokesperson of the Central Bank, real property gain taxes are in the process of being revised. The goods and services taxes is currently being lobbied to be eradicated."https://thepropertytimes.my/2015/02/07/real-estate-economist-awarded-rare-fast-track-for-phd-by-university-of-malaya/

I also found two more links not included in this article where he suggested hybrid auctions to be implemented in Malaysia courts. Note that these are by The star news as well:-https://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/letters/2016/08/03/hybrid-bidding-is-a-safer-option/

https://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/letters/2018/08/15/elelong-system-needs-to-be-reviewed/

There are about 7 more links including one by Focus Malaysia:- https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/risks-buying-foreclosed-property-focus-malaysia-paper-tham-kuen-wei

Not to mention the links attached by chessrepublic [duplicate refs removed]

I think too much emphasis given on the award without considering the policies he changed for the Malaysian government. A keep article especially for Malaysian related topic. (WTFS8 (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you. None of the new references you provided is a secondary source, they are letters to the editor written by the subject, plus a Linkedin link which is by definition useless for notability purposes. --bonadea contributions talk 11:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Nope you are wrong Bonadea. Look at the article of Focus Malaysia, it is published by independent media although its excerpt can be found on a linkedin page. Note to closing admin this article is created via Wikipedia Articles for Creation, which had gone through peer review before being published. A simple search in google shows he is famous but have to slowly go through all the search results for more information in the future. Junthree (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC) Duplicate "keep" struck --bonadea contributions talk 08:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Each user should only post one "keep/delete" comment. I struck the duplicate for you above. The Focus piece is not an "article", it is a letter to the editor/op-ed piece written by the subject, who then posted it on his LinkedIn page for promotion - that's fine, but he and his PR staff can't use Wikipedia like LinkedIn, the websites have different functions. Regardless of where it is published, that kind of text does not count towards notability, as already discussed above. Since no sources have as yet been found to show that he is notable, could you please provide some of the ones you have found? You have declared that you have a conflict of interest (which would have been obvious anyway from your editing behaviour) and so you are presumably in a position to know whether actual secondary sources exist, and where. So far we don't even have a souce to show when he received his PhD degree... --bonadea contributions talk 08:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 04:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Tham has four claims to notability: the award, his presidency of "the National Union of Real Estate (NURES)", work on the Malaysian real estate bubble, and his philanthropy:
    1. NURES is the National Union of Real Estate Students
    2. The award is evidence of student accomplishment, but is not notable as it was established in 1988, started at 14 awards annually in 1989, and had been awarded 567 times as of 2013 (when 38 were awarded).
    3. His work on the property bubble has a limited source derived from an interview which states "Tham Kuen Wei warns of a potential property bubble in Malaysia, but the government must..." which is no evidence that his warning was correct or that it had any effect, or even that the peak of the property bubble was in 2015/2016.
    4. His philanthropy is sourced to linkedin(!), and routine philanthropy, though generous, is not sufficient to buy notability.
Appears to have a lack of widespread significant coverage in reliable nonlocal sources. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 05:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentBut if you reread the article, "The Malaysian government and Khazanah Nasional, sponsored Tham on a research to pursue indepth analysis into the matter. Tham suggested policies on rising of real property gain taxes to curb speculation, and lowering of the goods and services taxes to ease inflation and increase purchasing power to enhance loan repayments." The government sponsors him for policy making. I think this deserves highlighting. [1] The coverage on his policy researching, discovering of new real estate issues and amount of coverage on welfare contributions fulfills notable guidelines. I did some extra search and there are also significant publications [2] [3] WTFS8 (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May i recommend a "keep for now" status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WTFS8 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing as a "keep for now", I'm afraid - he is either notable or not. As observed above, it is quite possible that he will become notable in the future, in which case somebody who is not connected to him or his staff will probably create an article, but we don't keep articles on the off-chance that the subject will become notable in the future. And getting a government grant for research is a run-of-the-mill thing for an academic. It's a big deal for the individual involved, but it does not confer notability according to Wikipedia's definition. --bonadea contributions talk 15:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sources of notability for several reasons including 1) recipient of a national honors. You can argue that there had been many recipients since 1988. Well, one could also argue that there had been over 800 recipients of the Nobel Prize. I am not saying that the Royal Education Award is as notable as the Nobel, but the award itself deserves some reputation, as far as Malaysia is concern. That's why this topic is a Malaysian based article since the economist is famous in Malaysia. His name was honored in the first page of the University Gazette [4].

There is also extensive coverage on his reputation as a notable economist and real estate expert in Malaysia. Malaysian prominent real estate economist Tham Kuen Wei warns of a potential property bubble in Malaysia, but the government must take correct and prompt procedures to intervene while allow for market forces to coordinate supply and demand.he Malaysian government and Khazanah Nasional, sponsored Tham on a research to pursue indepth analysis into the matter. Tham suggested policies on rising of real property gain taxes to curb speculation, and lowering of the goods and services taxes to ease inflation and increase purchasing power to enhance loan repayments. According to a government spokesperson of the Central Bank, real property gain taxes are in the process of being revised. The goods and services taxes is currently being lobbied to be eradicated."

Another article "Also present in court was the council’s member Tham Kuen Wei who is also a key economist advisor and government sponsored researcher in Malaysia. The auctioneers filed their challenge in October, to revoke the registrar’s decision to implement the system. Tham, who is a licensed auctioneer and foreclosure consultant for over 7 years is also a Khazanah doctorate researcher who helps to look into policies and non-performing property loans in Malaysia. Tham had spoken against online system and advocated for a hybrid system instead as it will be more transparent. He had been on the consultative council of the Malaysian Council of Auctioneers (MPM) since 2018." [5] [6]

I found many coverage on him as a real estate expert including some mandarin related papers [7]Albertleeys (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)— Albertleeys (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

  1. ^ https://thepropertytimes.my/2016/05/18/real-estate-expert-found-cause-of-malaysian-bubble-prompt-government-to-take-action/
  2. ^ https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/arzwpaper/eres2018_5f328.htm
  3. ^ https://eres.architexturez.net/doc/oai-eres-id-eres2009-300
  4. ^ https://www.um.edu.my/docs/default-source/cco-guidelines-and-forms/university-gazette/warta-universiti/2016.pdf?sfvrsn=4
  5. ^ https://thepropertytimes.my/2016/05/18/real-estate-expert-found-cause-of-malaysian-bubble-prompt-government-to-take-action/
  6. ^ https://thepropertytimes.my/2019/02/23/judge-allows-auctioneers-body-to-challenge-courts-e-lelong-system/
  7. ^ http://malaysiafengshuimaster.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Newspaper-Media-44-824x1024.jpg
Receiving a prize that is not notable does not confer notability, it is as simple as that. There are hundreds of thousands of awards - literally - at various institutions of higher education around the world that are equally notable, which is to say, not at all as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Brief mentions of his name is not the same thing as significant coverage. Nothing in these sources adds anything to show notability - I have gone through the sources provided. --bonadea contributions talk 15:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. It seems like the key argument was posted by Jay eyem and Levivich and is that none of the proffered sources are in-depth coverage of the tournament as a whole, and for WP:GNG to be met the sourcing needs to have some substance. This line of thinking has not been strongly rebutted by the keep camp, and the split-or-unsplit question has been argued more tightly by the delete camp as well. If people want to merge stuff from here into the main competition article, they can ask at WP:REFUND as appropriate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Windward Islands Tournament

2019 Windward Islands Tournament (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)

WP:GNG failure. Unreferenced. No clear notability for the tournament, let alone its various iterations. Contested PROD was removed saying that international events are typically notable, but I don't see that in this case, especially for a tournament organized on such a small level. It appears to be a subset of the Caribbean Football Union, which is itself a subset of CONCACAF, and the tournament does not appear to be actual competitive play. I don't see anything about it on CFU's site, and I didn't see any significant coverage when searching for the tournament in Google. Jay eyem (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment see this category Category:Windward Islands Tournament, some of the articles have reliable sources coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a friendly international football tournament, passes WP:GNG. See [29] [30] [31] [32]. While it may seem routine, this is the level of coverage expected for the region. SportingFlyer T·C 23:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really don't see how such localized sources can be considered to be significant coverage. Where even is the coverage from the CFU? All I've found so far is this and there is no way that is sufficient for any sort of article. It's essentially a permastub, and the same information is available at Windward Islands Tournament anyway. I don't see how this iteration is notable. And this isn't really an international tournament in the same way that the Caribbean Cup is. Jay eyem (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's an international tournament covered in the media by all of the countries participating, along with an article on the regional football federation's page, how is that not significant? Is it because the articles are short? SportingFlyer T·C 18:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would not consider any of the sources provided to be in-depth coverage of the tournament as a whole. The only thing really approaching that is the CFU's source, and I do not see how that qualifies this for a standalone article. There is no reason this could not be merged into Windward Islands Tournament (which itself needs better sourcing), and basically all of the relevant information is already there. Just because there is a slightly cobbled together collection of local sources doesn't mean something qualifies for WP:GNG, that is just imprudent. Jay eyem (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree firmly, there have been dozens of iterations of this tournament so merging really isn't an option and the tournament receives the requisite amount of local coverage. The "has the season been covered as a whole" argument fails for seasons since it's rare to see an article which covers a season (or, in this case, an event) as a whole, and this event was covered from start to finish in international media, unlike say a U.S. college tournament where only the final receives any sort of significant coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 22:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2nd ref listed (spiceislander.com) related to cricket so should be struck out. Spike 'em (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG as per the sources identified by Sporting Flyer and the article is one of a series if you check the category, WP :Permastub acknowledges that stubs are acceptable, the Encyclopedia Brittanica has many of them Atlantic306 (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability and unconvinced by GNG arguments. GiantSnowman 10:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The way I see this is currently a no-consensus between remove or keep. There appears to be some interesting sources online for the tournament however the article fails to cite any of them, the article was created by TheBigJagielka only in February and being polite would of been to give the guy a message to improve the article with citations before nominating this article to AfD. BigJagie seems to be semi-active and should be given a chance to improve his work before tearing it down. Govvy (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improve, and Keep should be an acceptable article with a small to moderate amount of effort. Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - full international tournament that passes WP:GNG as per the sources. --Jimbo[online] 13:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Editors involved in the AfD should commit themselves to much more than 'small' or 'moderate' amounts of related effort This is a most significant process, since it can result in the deletion of articles. And it's not a question of text size either because stub-size articles are, of course, entirely acceptable in Wikipedia. The main criterion is verifiable proof of notability. A serious effort, then, undertaken to assess the Keep suggestions shows that the subject does not meet the notability criteria for a sports event: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a news service. Wikinews offers a place where editors can document current news events, but not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting. National or global reporting is preferred. This tournament gets the attention of a few local media sources (exhaustively offered above by SportingFlyer) without any further coverage. A comnmendable perhaps event but not possessing Wikinotability. -The Gnome (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The tournament is an international competition so the quoted section of WP:NOT does not apply as that refers more specifically to local events not to national events and especially not to international events. Also, a number of the sources are national rather than local. Also, please remember that the Windward Islands is a nationality and deserves the relevant respect that entails rather than depicting it as a locality Atlantic306 (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Examining what I wrote I saw no disrespect towars islandic media. And by the way, the Windward Islands are not a "nationality" as you stated, nor a "nation". It's a geographical notation. -The Gnome (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're right as it is a group of nations but that makes its inclusion more justified Atlantic306 (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The most important factor for me is that this is not an AfD to delete Windward Islands Tournament, it's an AfD to delete 2019 Windward Islands Tournament. So it's not like if we delete this article, this tournament won't be covered in the encyclopedia. The only question for me is, do we need a separate stand-alone article for each year of this tournament? The answer is no. There is not GNG for the 2019 edition. All the links posted here (and all I can find online) are articles about a particular team playing in the tournament. Most of those are routine; the ones that are significant in length are SIGCOV of the team, not that year's tournament. Where, for example, is the long article about "Our predictions for the 2019 Windward Islands Tournament"? Or "How this year's teams will stack up against each other". You get that stuff for highly-notable tournaments, like the World Cup. Only those super-major tournaments merit a stand-alone article for each year. Although I think the tournament itself is notable, and the teams that play in it may be notable, the tournament doesn't receive the kind of GNG coverage that would make each separate year notable enough for a standalone article. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, information about each particular year should be at Windward Islands Tournament and not in a per-year standalone. We don't even need a redirect here. Although redirects are cheap and harmless, if we did one for every year of every competition, we'd have a lot, and we'd have to create more each year. So, delete, and our readers will find the same information at Windward Islands Tournament. Leviv ich 14:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requiring "Predictions for the tournament" as a prerequisite for an individual tournament article is very far away from policy. Look at any United States college tournament article for proof we don't need articles covering the full competition to pass WP:GNG. Furthermore, this tournament has had a number of editions, so including detailed information about this specific tournament, which is covered by reputable footballing encyclopedias such as [33], is best served as a content fork. SportingFlyer T·C 20:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Except college soccer tournaments get deleted all the time for this exact reason, the only difference here is that this is on a national level rather than a collegiate level. The coverage is actually arguably less than most D1 college soccer tournament receive. Jay eyem (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as per WP:Paper it makes sense to have seperate articles for each year rather than significantly increasing the size and loading time of the parent page. Also, as the parent article is notable this is a valid split which does not have to be independently notable but it in any case it is independently notable Atlantic306 (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is incorrect that this does not have to have independent notability. Notability is not inherited, and given the fact that there really isn't much more information that would need merging in, there does not appear to be a need for a split. The argument must be for why this specific iteration of the tournament should be kept, and I maintain that this does not pass WP:GNG. I think User:Levivich has put forward a reasonable standard by which notability for this tournament should be measured. Jay eyem (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm actually a big fan of WP:NOTPAPER, but we also have a guideline on WP:LENGTH that talks about dividing at 50k-100k. I don't see the benefit in splitting off a 10k article from a 7k article. If anything, I think it's more convenient to the reader to have the information about each year's tournament all on the same page. Leviv ich 22:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I relisted this a week ago because the discussion seemed still ongoing. Apparently that was not the case as there has been no more comments. G4 is not really applicable after an AfD a decade ago. The "delete" !votes have somewhat stronger arguments than the "keep" !votes. The thing that clinches the deal is the promotional nature of the article (see also WP:TNT). I will also salt the article. However, several editors argue that this person may meet NMUSIC. Hence, there is no prejudice to creating a bio in draft space and if it passes muster, any admin can move it to article space. Randykitty (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lolene

AfDs for this article:
Lolene (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)

Shameless serial self-promotion for over a decade! full of weasley hyperbole fails GNG. previously deleted with 5Ds, 4 speedys, nom and no keep/support. non notable musician. has not charted in a country's chart as per WP:Music (did have one song in a niche genre-chart) Rayman60 (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: as WP:G4. Multiple recreations so WP:SALT applies. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: although most of the article is unsourced promotion and should be removed, we must be honest and recognise that she has had two songs chart on Billboard's Dance Club Play chart [34]. I know it's not the Hot 100, but charting on one of the specialist charts often been considered enough to pass notability. Richard3120 (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1) charting is subjective and not automatic notability. 2) take the promotional prose away and the article has nothing. Trillfendi (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable songwriter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The artist is notable enough for Wikipedia verifiability and notability guidelines since she charted onto the Billboard List back in '09. Although it can be seen as subjective, it is in fact enough as per Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musicians. MalibuKing113 (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs to be completely rewritten in a neutral tone but the subject is notable in terms of WP:NMUSIC with charting hits in the US and releases on a major label, namely Capital Records so the article should be kept and salvaged from its present state of promo dirge Atlantic306 (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She meet WP:NMUSIC. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Also, a clear case for salting. The text is a lengthy enumeration of trivialities about an artist who, as it happens, did not make it (a comeback may be in the works, though, by the looks of it) yet has concocted her own page in Wikipedia. The only claim to fame is an appearance on a Dance Hits list. Beyond that there is nothing. Brief fame, then possibly, Wikinotability not by a mile. Subject utterly fails WP:NMUSICIAN and I'd challenge anyone who believes otherwise to come forward and present evidence to the contrary, citing the specific criteria met. Generalities don't make it. -The Gnome (talk) 10:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment She has had two songs chart on Billboard's Dance Club Play chart [35]. I know it's not the Hot 100, but charting on one of the specialist charts often been considered enough to pass notability. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, MyanmarBBQ. This is supposed to be a biography article. The argument about having a record or two charted is not enough for the inclusion of a biography in Wikipedia. When no other information can be presented (under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on verifiability) there is simply not enough for a biography. Tellingly, the contested article is made up of a self-made photo, lots of self-penned personal info, an inappropriate amount of unsourced detail, and a link to a Bristol newspaper with the big news of a local signing a contract with an American record company, part of the thousands of signings made by record companies. (The overwhelming majority of them come to nothing.) Oh and an advertorial in the "populist" RapUp, along with a link to WeArePopSlags, which is an unacceptable source. More chance stands the song than the person. -The Gnome (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of British monarchy records

List of British monarchy records (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 is nothing but a collection of trivia. The utter lack of reliable sources strongly suggests that compiling information about "British monarchy records", such as "the greatest age difference of an outgoing British monarch and successor" or "the queen regnant with the most pregnancies", is of no interest to scholars. Surtsicna (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Collections of widely available facts are of legitimate interest to many without the pretension of designating any particular "reliable source" for them and statistical comparisons are self-evident. LE (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't be ridiculous. The "greatest age difference of an outgoing British monarch and successor" is not a widely available fact. That the oldest monarch at the time of his marriage was Edward I is not a widely available fact. Things like these definitely require a reliable source. The best this article can hope for is to synthesize conclusions from different sources, which is forbidden but presumably better than having no sources at all. But Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We have a policy that specifically says that Wikipedia articles should not be lists of unexplained statistics. Surtsicna (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • When various English monarchs were born and when they married are widely available facts and mathematics is a widely available skill. Establishing which interval was longest is not something that needs great scholarship to establish. This article has existed for about a dozen years so why pick on it now? LE (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, and taking raw data and reaching your own conclusions through scholarship (even non-great scholarship) is WP:SYNTH. Agricolae (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Which is a clear example of the policies Wikipedia needs to abolish! LE (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if this trivia is indeed of interest to many, it will not be difficult to find sources establishing the notability of the topic. Surtsicna (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of this is trivia, and much of it is synthesis - we aren't supposed to be reaching conclusions (however self-evident we think they are) that are not found in reliable sources. The need for a source both avoids synthesis and demonstrates that someone outside of the Wikiverse thinks it is noteworthy. Agricolae (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTTRIVIA and ROYAL FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge Crazy amount of trivia and fancruft per Ajf. List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign and List of British monarchs by longevity could absorb some of what's not just minutiae. I could see List of British monarchs taking in a condensed table though if there's some sourcing. Reywas92Talk 19:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge per Reywas92. Mosaicberry (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Textbook example if list-cruft. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Most of this article centers around the English monarchs, not British or Scottish, thus we should modify the summary-section a bit and merge it with List of English Monarchs. Go-Chlodio (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem here is not only that the topic is not notable, it is that the content is both unreferenced trivia and original research-synthesis. We absolutely don't want to just move it to another page. Agricolae (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Original research should be highly praised and sought after as nothing else gives any article independent value. The powers that want to make Wikipedia a pile of vomit that does nothing but regurgitate what can (and therefore should) be found elsewhere get far too much respect! LE (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Umm, you do realize that WP:No Original Research is one of the core content policies of Wikipedia, one of its founding principles? To quote, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research". Not much ambiguity there. Agricolae (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • And I trust I left no ambiguity as to my contempt for that attitude. Textbook example of "a custom more honoured in the breach than the observance." Praise complaint, not compliance; eschew deference, demand defiance. But on a self-published site that regards other self-published sites being self-published sites as something wrong with them, I realize the herd mentality is strong. LE (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • And I realize there ought to be a more serious investigation of your contributions than a single AfD. Surtsicna (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Surt sick' ness, n. [Fm Surtsicna, one of the most seriously afflicted] 1. The idee fixe that Wikipedia needs less of what it actually needs more of; also, irrational attachment to misguided policies that can be twisted to achieve this end. LE (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • The malady is believed to be transmitted by an infected Village Pump.
  • Keep -- The subject is of sufficient interest to be worth having. A few of the topics are a bit silly, like length of marriage zero because never married. so prune. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sufficient interest for whom? Where are the sources confirming the notability of the topic? Surtsicna (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - this looks to me like a poorly conceived spin-off of List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign (in fact, based on the comment at this articles creation, that is exactly what this is). For a list, I don't see what connects these articles in sources. That is, is there a reliable source which organizes British monarchs by their oddities relative to each other? If so, I'd be happy to change my !vote. But as it is, listing in this way seems to fail NOR (and strikes me as unencyclopedic, if lots of fun). Smmurphy(Talk) 16:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as list cruft. The longevity record is of encyclopedic importance but that is covered elsewhere. Now, as for the comments of @Agricolae above: Original research in Wikipedia terms means undocumented scientific "discoveries" and novel interpretations of history not covered in published sources. Every single article at Wikipedia and every single list includes facts constructed in a unique way. Editorial decisions are made about what to include or exclude and material is presented in an original manner, otherwise it would be plagiarism. So the "original research is prohibited" handwringing is entirely misplaced here, in my estimation. There is plenty of room for deletion on the grounds that this is an aggregation of undocumented trivia. Carrite (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The compiler here has not just compiled facts in a novel way, they have reached novel conclusions. "Sophia of Hanover was heir presumptive"and "Sophia of Hanover died aged 83 years 237 days" are both recorded facts found in sources. "Sophia of Hanover was the oldest ever heir presumptive who died while in waiting" is likely not (at least no reference is given). It would be an 'interpretation not covered in published sources', as you say. To quote WP:SYNTH (part of WP:NOR), "'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." Agricolae (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again... the independent value of an article is measured exclusively by what it contains that can not be found anywhere else. If you want to compile bibliographies don't bother stitching together a text. If somebody else has already said it there is no point in repeating it without adding anything. LE (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • If nobody else has already said it, it isn't WP:V. There seems to be more than one core policy you cannot abide. Agricolae (talk) 04:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wikipedia certainly has its share of problematic policies. It's a shame when people derive a sense of community from being part of the problem. LE (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The prevalence of usage of this kind of record in the media shows that the interest is there for a start. (A 30-second search for the first three facts gives [36][37][38], for example.) Also the label of 'trivia' is a pernicious one as even the most scholarly work will contain facts that are not consequential within the text, but nonetheless notable for some reason. Without them subsequent refinement of such scholarship becomes more difficult. But then if the issue is that more references are needed then that's a different matter; one for article improvement, not deletion. Smb1001 (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Smb1001 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
    • What your 30-second search confirmed is in List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign. Now, can we honestly say that there is interest in media or scholarship in the greatest age difference between a predecessor and a successor, or in a consort's age at marriage, or who the eldest female was at accession, etc?
      The issue is not that more references are needed but that references are unobtainable for the vast majority of stuff listed there. Who says which monarchs hold the record for having the lowest number of children? Who says that Victoria was the shortest monarch and how is that even possible when some died as children and some have never been measured? Who says that Edward I was the oldest monarch to become a parent and Harold Harefoot the youngest? Who outside Wikipedia has ever talked about the "longest single tenure for a male heir-presumptive"? Describing this as trivia is not pernicious but generous. Much of it is plain horseshit. Surtsicna (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your habit of deriding a page's content by its most egregious elements does not help your cause; you're making a case for pruning, not deletion. Smb1001 (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those are not this page's most egregious elements. Surtsicna (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • More importantly, if you prune the egregious and also the mundane, there is basically nothing left, so I would prune this by by cutting it off at the base and burning the stump. Agricolae (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That references are unobtainable elsewhere is precisely what makes the case for having them here. Remember, only original research can ever give an article independent value. The Guiness Book has intermittently covered a number of the categories in the article but having the best collection anywhere is something to aspire to, not be ashamed of.LE (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Go write a blog then. Original research does not belong on Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per policy. ——SerialNumber54129 11:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, it's trivia, but some trivia is useful and interesting. This is one of those collections. It's not indiscriminate. No good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't that a prime example of "I like it therefore we should keep it"? Usefulness is also no reason to keep something, otherwise this project would be swarmed by recipes and DIY instructions. And a very good reason to delete this is that it consists entirely of original research, as admitted by the major contributor right here. Surtsicna (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it isn't OR. OR is widely misinterpreted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let's be serious. Not only does the whole thing scream original research by synthesis, the biggest contributor says right here that he/she aspires to present his/her original research on Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Very much WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I fear. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you are referring to original research, then yes, I very much don't like it - especially when the author confirms it's original research, expresses desire to write more original research, and gets indefinitely blocked for it. Surtsicna (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Scott Burley (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Concepcion

Martin Concepcion (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:NBOXING. Regional level wins only and a few lost challenges at higher levels. Insufficient coverage for WP:GNG, some limited regional press coverage. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject passes WP:GNG. This article was created twelve years ago. All other boxers who fought in The Contender Challenge: UK vs. USA have an article due to that or got one due to that if they had not had one before. There is also many independent, reliable sources on the subject included in the article and on the web. User talk:Qualitee123 17:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that other stuff exists is not a reason to keep an article. WP:NBOX clearly states the criteria for notability. A quick look at the UK boxers in that "TV show" - some of them are commonwealth or olympic medal winners or have won a national title. Martin has only won regional titles. That is insufficient for notability. One other boxer in that group also fails NBOX and I have raised an AfD. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 18:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They’ve both been on Wikipedia for over 10 years now and have never been flagged up before. User talk:Qualitee123 19:34 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete- Fought in regional bouts only. Not a notable boxer. Fails WP:NBOX. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He had two British title fights and one for a Commonwealth title. Very obviously notable enough for inclusion. --Michig (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Michig: Thanks for your vote. I may look at NBOX too strictly and appreciate clarification. (2) stipulates that notability is achieved by a non-world title won. The title assessment link specifies this as including Commonwealth and British titles. This is different to (1) which gives notability to individuals who have fought for a world tile, irrespective of win or loss. As Concepcion has not fought for any world titles (1) and not won any non-world titles (2), I wonder if the notability guidelines may need to be clarified. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 06:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NBOX sets a ridiculously high bar, probably higher than any other major sport. The boxing project came up with more sensible criteria, but when NBOX was updated with the consensus for that (which included boxers who had fought for national titles in major boxing countries) it was reverted because it was deemed to have been discussed in the wrong place. Boxing is one of the biggest sports in the UK, and someone who has fought for a national title here is significant enough for inclusion, and will have enough coverage around to satisfy the GNG wonks too, even if it may be hard to find online as we have two major boxing magazines that provide coverage of boxers well below the level of national title challengers. Even online, there's enough to satisfy GNG: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]. --Michig (talk) 07:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neverthelss, NBOX stands according to current consensus. I'm agnostic to how NBOX came about or what other discussions there may have been. I see three articles that may be relevant, Eurosport, Sky, BBC. I take regional and tabloid coverage as carrying less weight for any N discussions. It's debatable if that's significant coverage'. BTW, Boxing in general may be well covered - which makes one wonder why there is not more about this individual - however I am not sure I subscribe to boxing being one of the most popular UK sports. It appears to be outside the top 10 for live viewing attendance (below Golf) according to this and below The Masters and Bake Off when it comes to "competitive" one-off TV events according to this. I know WP:OSE is a slippery slope, but I do not see an article for every Bake Off runner up, which sort of feels right. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A ludicrous comparison. --Michig (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NBOX seems quite clear--the non-world titles in the list need to be won, not just fought for. World titles are different, but do not apply in this case. Subject does fail WP:NBOX. Listing boxrec.com 34 times as a reference does not show notability. The sources given by Michig are either results or of the "he is fighting so-and-so on Saturday" variety. These types of sources can be found for every pro boxer. The regional titles he won are minor and generated only local coverage. For example, his last regional title was the "BBBofC Midlands Area Super Middleweight" title where he defeated someone who had 5 victories in 62 pro fights. Hardly encyclopedic. Papaursa (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how long ago the article was created nor whether or not other boxers from The Contender Challenge are notable. Simply fighting for British and Commonwealth titles does not meet WP:NBOX and so doesn't show notability. Nothing you said actually shows he meets any notability standards.Sandals1 (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It meets at least WP:GNG. His notability is shown in the sources. Qualitee123 (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Routine sports coverage does not meet the GNG. I crossed out your last vote because you can only vote once per discussion.Sandals1 (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Tibetan National Football Association. Seems clear consensus is to redirect, but some confusion over to where. I'm going to be bold here and plump for the TNFA, as that, according to the articles is where he now works, plus he is actually mentioned in the article. Fenix down (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsang Dhondup

Kelsang Dhondup (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)

He fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played or managed in a FPL or senior international match. Tibet isn't a nation and isn't recognised by FIFA. Dhondup fails GNG also. Dougal18 (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dougal18 (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect' but to Tibetan National Football Association instead. GiantSnowman 10:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to either of the two targets above, without prejudice on article recreation if better sources are found. SportingFlyer T·C 18:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - per above. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't get the redirect suggestion, Levivich has shown enough sourcing to pass a basic WP:GNG article, this whole AfD is a joke. Levi why don't you improve some articles then instead of wanting to delete them all. Govvy (talk) 10:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's two different targets for a redirect mentioned and right now redirect seems to be the consensus. Relisting to hopefully establish consensus for the target redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 03:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NFOOTY is a presumption of notability as part of NSPORTS. The presumption is that players who have played in a fully professional league are notable per GNG. This has been challenged here and not a single source has been presented to indicate that the presumption of GNG is correct. Fenix down (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phousseyne Diaby

Phousseyne Diaby (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 about amateur footballer who made a 3 minute substitute's appearance in the fully-pro Ligue 2 6 years ago. There is plenty of precedent (see e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phakamani Mngadi) for treating a footballer who has played such a minimal amount in a fully-pro league as not satisfying WP:FOOTBALL when the article comprehensively fails WP:GNG as this one does. All online coverage is routine such as database listings and a note about an absence from the squad due to injury. Jogurney (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is not at all what the notability guideline for football says. Here is a list of leagues that are considered notable.
Above comment made by Jacona. -The Gnome (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Definitely satisfies WP:BIO, WP:SPORTSPERSON, WP:NSPORT, WP:NFOOTBALL (this player is a member of a team participating in tournaments conducted by FIFA), links= [53], [54], etc).--PATH SLOPU 08:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFOOTY. The list of leagues considered fully professional and thus meeting the notability requirement of the football notability guideline, does not include the belgian 3rd tier nor the belgian 2nd tier. I don't see any indication that this player passes the general notability guideline either.Jacona (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per SoccerWay, it appears this player's only NFOOTY game is the one sub appearance for 3 minutes. Since then, he has played in non-WP:FPL leagues. Per SW, his appearance on the youth national team was also 3 minutes in duration. I can find no coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Leviv ich 05:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is recent precedent that one NFOOTY-qualifying game, absent GNG, is not enough for notability: [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]. Leviv ich 20:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 3 minutes of play at the edges of NFOOTY 6 years ago. Has since moved to lower leagues - no expectation of future NFOOTY play. Fails GNG per my BEFORE. Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article clearly passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list. Shotgun pete 8:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG, even if he technically passes WP:NFOOTBALL through 3 minutes of play. GiantSnowman 07:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I really hope people would stop citing FPL in AfD until this has been evaluated and put into policy. This is a list/essay which is incomplete. It is not policy. Also, some in the list lack sources or are poorly sourced. This issue was brought to my attention when I was participating in another AfD concerning a footballer from Sierra Leone. When I went through the archived source for Sierra Leone, it was evident that the editor who added that source had misinterpreted what the source said. I'm not even a football fan but time after time I have seen some editors cite that list as if it is a policy. Perhaps I should raise this concern over there as well. At the moment, we can only go by our policies set in stone, and as far as I can see, I am inclined to agree with Path slopu.Tamsier (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying there is a league this player has played in that is fully professional but not listed on FPL? NFooty says "fully professional league" not "league listed on FPL", so I agree that FPL isn't the end of the discussion. If RSes demonstrate that he played in a fully professional league (for more than 3 minutes 6 years ago), that might sway !voters. Leviv ich 17:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my research, the French media refers to the football leagues below Ligue 2 (e.g., Championnat National and below) as amateur. If you have sources which indicate these leagues are fully-pro, please share them. Jogurney (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of substantive sources beyond routine database stats fails GNG. 3 minutes of play in a minor league makes any claim of automatic notability an utter embarrassment. Reywas92Talk 05:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the ongoing discussion (and another dispute over this aspect) a relist seems in order -
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Must have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure: Phousseyne Diaby is a player of K.V. Woluwe-Zaventem, his first, only, and current club, which are in the Belgian Third Amateur Division. Must have played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition: Phousseyne Diaby has never played in such a fixture. Must have played FIFA recognised senior international football or football at the Olympic games: Phousseyne Diaby has never played in such a game.
A commendable effort, then, to create an article but ultimately there is no Wikinotablity. -The Gnome (talk) 09:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – In an April 11 comment above, I listed links to some "recent precedent" in similar AfDs. Since then, several more similar AfDs have closed. They are all listed here. Leviv ich 03:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Scott Burley (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of far-right political parties

List of far-right political parties (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)

Per WP:TNT. This list is an absolute nightmare. For such a controversial list, to have no references at all is appalling. There might not be a need for such a list anyway (it could be a category), but in any case it cannot exist in such a state. StAnselm (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Every party name on the list is a link to a Wikipedia article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no evidence that any are far-right political parties. For example, all the entries in "Australia - current" were wrong. The political parties (e.g. One Nation) were not described by reliable sources as "far right"; the far-right organisations were not political parties. So how can any of the content remain? StAnselm (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT unless someone wants to clean it up quickly. It is very worrying that there are parties on this list who are not described as far-right in their own articles, let alone have a source verifying that. If there was a clean version to revert to I would support that, but as it is, it is easier to wipe it out and let someone build up a properly referenced list. SpinningSpark 18:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I see nothing but fixable issues here. If an article is properly categorized by Category:Far-right political parties or a subcategory thereof (and every article I clicked on in a random sample was so categorized), then it is properly listed here as it's the exact same statement of fact. Given that the nominator themselves implies that the category is fine, and there is not even a suggestion that "far right" is not a meaningful classification such that we should have neither category nor list, deleting this would be an act of laziness ("it's too hard to clean up or maintain") rather than policy-supported. postdlf (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • List pages are articles and are therefore not immune from requiring reliable sources. Inclusion in a Wikipedia category most certainly does not amount to verification. At the very least, the linked article should contain a verifying citation. It is easily demonstrable that some articles in the category do not even have a claim of being far right in them. Sure, its fixable, but it's not easy. Are you volunteering to do it? It's easier to start again with a list that we can verify. That's why TNT applies in this case. SpinningSpark 18:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have mixed feelings about this. One one hand, deletion is not appropriate as an alternative to just doing the work of copying citations for already-verified claims from other Wikipedia articles. Yes, the ideal is to have a citation for every list item, but those citations are readily available. When you go to challenge material, it's just lazy not to just click to the link first. If the article doesn't verify it, then by all means remove it from the list. If it does, copy over the citation. That said, "far-right" is tricky, and encompasses a lot. Are we looking for any party that a single reliable source has called "far-right"? If they're associated with Nazis or fascists, are they automatically considered far-right? Does that need to be a defining characteristic? IMO this is not about which sources have/haven't been copied into this article, but whether a clear inclusion criteria can be articulated such that this is an appropriate topic for a list regardless of whether every entry has a source. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the risk of starting to badger, I remind you that this list is 100% unsourced. It is already known that some of the items are inappropriate/dubious. To clean it up requires it to be 100% checked. This is much the same as TNT and start over. SpinningSpark 19:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you want to challenge specific entries, you can do so. It would be lazy to do so without checking the article first, since the presumption should be that it's verified in the article, but if it's not there, remove it. Lots of lists are unsourced because they're predicated on the existence of Wikipedia articles with sources. That's not ideal, and is something to be fixed, so anyone is welcome to WP:SOFIXIT. The list should only be deleted if the subject itself is not appropriate, not because nobody has yet copied over the sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. postdlf (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ORIGINAL RESEARCH due to the undefined, subjective nature of "far right". It is difficult to see what the Islamic Action Front has in common with the Odriíst National Union, or what ideology the Philippine Falange shares with the European Workers Party. Which political ideas are regarded as "far right" vary so greatly across time and from country to country tha tit is impossible to fix a definition of "far right parties."E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Far-right, Category:Far-right politics, Category:Far-right political parties... If there is an issue even with whether the term "far-right" is verifiable, that needs to be a broader discussion than just the fate of one index of articles as we have here. Keep in mind too that so long as it's reliable sources applying that classification, and not editors, then it is not OR, and your disagreement with those sources is not relevant. Your complaint even seems to attack the very idea of political spectrum classifications, which is even less germane here. postdlf (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Political parties by ideology make sense. Category:Fascist parties, Category:Monarchist parties or Labour parties make sense. But this list is arbitrary because of the lack of definition of "far-right". E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unworkable. For those pointing to Category:Far-right political parties, compare Category:Far-right politics by country, which then is divided into categories for each country and has many more parties in these categories than Category:Far-right political parties. It is these categories, I think, that were used to inform the creation of this article. Yet the state of the article is horrid. The lack of sourcing for these hundreds of items is not something that should be ignored, and indeed some of the parties I clicked on are not reliably described as far-right within their own articles, so it is dubious if sources could be found for all of the parties in the list. So therefore, we have several dilemmas:
  1. Category:Far-right political parties seems to be woefully underdeveloped compared to Category:Far-right politics by country and its subcategories.
  2. There exists a Category:Far-right political parties by country‎, but it is also underdeveloped. For example, Category:Far-right politics in Mexico‎ contains several political parties, but Category:Far-right political parties in Mexico does not exist.
  3. The list at the center of this AFD is completely unsourced.
  4. The inclusion of articles in the aforementioned categories may also be unsourced.
So delete the subject of this AFD per nom, but something may have to be done about these categories. Pinguinn 🐧 06:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Do we have a list of left wing or Centre political parties? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is easy to find sources to label anybody as "far right" and that's why this list can never serve the purpose of encyclopedia. ML talk 09:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Jewell

Emily Jewell (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)

Actress of questionable notability. All her TV appearance seem to be 1 or 2 time shots while her single film role is just one role. Upon looking up Emily Jewell (actress) I am not getting many results either (I had to do actress as I got a different person when I did just her name) Wgolf (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Multiple stage, TV and film appearances add up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-Couldn't find info on her stage appearances. I think the big problem is the article makes it sound like she was mainly in TV/film. (also she has only been in one film and from what I can tell it wasn't a big part). Wgolf (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW-I did go to the rescued archive source and once I did the catcha it went to a "not found" page. Wgolf (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I just noticed it said that she is basically the main character of one of the stage plays she is in-that is what happens when the stage play and the film she is in has nearly the same title and thought it was referring to the film. I might withdraw this if more refs are found. Wgolf (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: can't find any trace of the "Twister Theatre Company" in which she starred, could be local amateur dramatics group. Sorry. PamD 09:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Likewise, I couldn't find anything on "Twisted Theatre Company." There is a "Glitter & Twisted Theatre Company" but they've never performed the shows this person's article claims. Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG; IMDb isn't considered notable by itself and that page seems to be the only one in existence that talks about this person. WP:CITINGIMDB (essay), WP:USERGENERATED (content guideline), and WP:RS/IMDB (wikiproject guideline) go into some explanation as to why those citations can't be used to establish notability. Without fully understanding her CV since the archive seems impossible to view, I can almost say with certainty that it was written by herself/her agent and therefore would also not establish notability. Userqio (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately, I can't find anything more about this Emily Jewell either. I am able to access her CV on Spotlight [63] - it's "provided by or on behalf of the member concerned", and is basically an industry listing of actors' details, so confirms that she exists - and actually doesn't give any indication of roles or shows that would add to her notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete verification of existence as an actor doesn't mean notable. Graywalls (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC✉ 20:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails the WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 02:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Scott Burley (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Lin

Jamie Lin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only source on the page is the webpage of the competition she won. Beauty queens are not default notable, and competition press releases and websites do not show notability. A search for additional sources showed up nothing. The only Jamie Lin I found information on was a man involved in computer programing, nothing on her. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 03:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 03:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 03:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 03:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is an example of WP:BLP1E. Subject won a title 11 years ago. A Google search shows zero evidence of reliable sources for anything since. Fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - won the national title and competed at an international level at one of the "big 4" international beauty pageants. As in sports, participating in the premier international competition indicates notability. Not sure whether any editors here are able to search Chinese-language (Cantonese maybe for TW?) sources for additional mentions? MurielMary (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I can’t believe that are you are comparing a pageant based purely on a persons appearance against a sporting contest, which requires physical and mental skills. Besides in most cases, apart from the Olympics, an individual needs to have at least placed in an international competition, to be considered notable. Dan arndt (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I absolutely cannot believe that you have nominated these articles for deletion when you clearly have such limited knowledge of the subject matter! Beauty pageants are *not* judged purely on appearance; there are multiple sections for talent performance, presenting a charity the contestant has been involved with, completing an interview, completing a sports event and actual modelling tasks. It's an all-round competition and the winners are celebrities in their own countries. MurielMary (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She's best known for beauty pageant but without some coverage indicating something else that makes her notable, even a brief mention indicating she might be notable for something else. Graywalls (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - From a quick search conducted in English, no reliable sources on the subject... perhaps there would be a few in other languages. Does not meet general notability criteria. Spyder212 (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Make It Pop. -- Scott Burley (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Tham

Erika Tham (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)

May not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NBIO. Had been tagged with {{Notability|Bio}} since February 2016. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Off-Topic Comment - This deletion sorting has become truly preposterous. The actress is Canadian. Just because she lived in multiple countries does not mean that the deletion discussion has to be promoted to WP volunteers who handle articles about all those places. Also she has pretty much one occupation as a TV actress. The once-convenient deletion sorting service has gone mad! ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Actresses are not automatically handed a free pass over WP:NACTOR just because they've had roles — every actor has always had roles, because having roles is the job description. The notability test for actors and actresses is not in the mere listing of roles, but in the quality and depth and range and volume of reliable source coverage in media that they received for having roles. That's not what these references are, however: of the six footnotes present here, four are unreliable sources that do not count as support for notability at all, and the two that are technically reliable sources both just namecheck her existence a single time in articles that are not about her. That is not how you get an actress over the Wikipedia inclusion bar, if the notability claim you're shooting for is "actress who has acted" rather than "actress who has won a notable acting award". Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (as WP:ATD) to Make It Pop since that is her only major role. WP:TOOSOON also applies since she is a minor. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    FoxyGrampa75, she is also in Kim Possible live action film. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:NACTOR #1, with major cast roles in notable Canadian musical television series Make It Pop (as in, there are Wikipedia articles about them). change my vote to Delete as agree per Bearcat and Tyw7. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    MyanmarBBQ, well they need to be in multiple notable films, not just one.
    "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    not just one! Had a supporting role in the film Kim Possible. Let you know. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    MyanmarBBQ, that role is just a supporting role. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, supporting roles are not automatically the same thing as notability-making roles. Secondly, even if she'd had a starring role in Kim Possible, the notability test would still hinge not on just saying the words "Kim Possible", but on the depth and breadth and volume of reliable source coverage about her that she could be shown to have received for it. As I said above, the notability test for actors is not just the fact that roles are listed in the article — the notability test is the degree to which the roles did or didn't translate into real media (i.e. not blogs or gossip tabloids) doing journalism about her and her performances. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - So far, Make It Pop is her only role that has gotten some minor notice. She might fully qualify for a Wikipedia article if her role in Kim Possible earns significant media notice that is about her in particular. For now, it is too soon for an article but that may change in the not-too-distant future. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies NACTOR with her roles in Make it Pop and Kim Possible. That is not a "free pass". Bearcats additions to NACTOR are simply not part of that guideline. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Duffbeerforme, her role in Kim Possible is not a significant one. She only plays a minor character with not much screen times. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes Tyw7, reading some more it does look like that role is not significant. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't "added" anything to NACTOR at all. It is standard consensus that NACTOR is not automatically passed by every actor who can simply list roles — that would hand an automatic free pass over NACTOR to every single actor who exists, because every actor can always list roles. So if that were how it worked, then there could be no actual notability standard for actors at all anymore, because it would be impossible for any actor to ever actually fail NACTOR anymore if all they had to do was list roles. So the notability test is not just the ability to list roles, it is the ability to show that the actor received reliable source coverage about his or her having of roles. Not because I made shit up, but because consensus has established that as how NACTOR works. There is never any such thing on Wikipedia as a notability claim that guarantees a person a Wikipedia article just because it's been asserted — no matter what notability claim is being made, real reliable source coverage is always the measure of whether the notability criterion is actually passed or failed. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And now you are dropping part of NACTOR to create a strawman. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. I'm exactly correctly summarizing how NACTOR does work and always has worked, and am neither "dropping" any part of it nor strawmanning anything. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You wrote "NACTOR is not automatically passed by every actor who can simply list roles — that would hand an automatic free pass over NACTOR to every single actor who exists, because every actor can always list roles. So if that were how it worked, then there could be no actual notability standard for actors at all anymore, because it would be impossible for any actor to ever actually fail NACTOR anymore if all they had to do was list roles." Pure strawman. Let's look at what NACTOR actually says. "1.Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." (emphasis added). You've dropped the significant and the notable to create an claim no one is making just to argue against. Restore those two words and your house of cards comes tumbling down. They have to do more than just "list roles". Your claim of "exactly correctly" is a blatant lie. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no conflict between what I said and what you said: what you're missing is the fact that reliable sources have to independently establish the significance of the person's role by focusing on it and/or her. Every role in every film, every role in every television series, and on and so forth, would always get every actor over NACTOR #1 if all you had to do was invoke the words "significant role" — because if all you had to do to get an actor over the notability bar was say those words, then every actor could and would just say those words about every role. We regularly, in fact, see actors try to get into Wikipedia for publicity purposes by overselling the "significance" of their roles in things, which is precisely why just saying the words "significant role" is not a free exemption from actually having to source the article properly. So reliable sources have to establish the role's significance, by singling the role and her performance in it out for dedicated attention, before the role is "significant" enough to count toward NACTOR #1. That's why I'm not wrong. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Bearcat, Duffbeerforme, do you want to take the argument off this AFD? Perhaps to Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we need realistic application of terms like "notable production" and "significant role". These terms mean indepth coverage of the role as such, not passing mention. Unfortunantely this standard has not been well applied, which is one reason Wikipedia is bloated with actor articles that are often little more than a filmography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Her work isn't substantial enough to convince me she's notable. PKT(alk) 12:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Scott Burley (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holocene (Portland, Oregon)

Holocene (Portland, Oregon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am looking through items in categories and spotted this. You will get a lot of "hits" on Google, because it's a music venue and the local alternative bi-weekly the Portland Mercury has a significant amount of their publication dedicated to event listings. It's lacking WP:SIGCOV (significant coverage with depth) in WP:AUD (regionally or greater circulated) independent reliable source that is expected for WP:ORG (business and companies notability)expectations, I really doubt it. Graywalls (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator has responded to AfD asserting significant coverage. Lots of citations added, lots of contents added. A good amount of them are of vanilla event, vanilla event 2, .... (reference: event calendar) entries. Here's a partial copy of what one of those citations look like. WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:N considers citations of this nature have little meaning in notability. Event listings of this nature is equivalent to listing out some random flights on an airport article and whether those things should even be included just because they're verifiable is questionable. Furthermore, dropping names of people who held events there does not further notability for Wikipedia purposes. This is because WP:INHERITORG states that "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." This place is of only local interest.

(partially pasted. This appears within a long list that appears in the reference)

Tin House AWP Party

Portland publisher Tin House throws a party in conjunction with the AWP conference, with acclaimed authors Hanif Abrurraqib, Erica Dawson, Morgan Parker, and Tommy Pico reading from their latest collection, and DJ Mami Miami heading up a after-reading dance party. (9 pm, Holocene, $5)

As you can see, it's a part of an event calendar. Many Portland Mercury references are of this nature. Willamette Week is as well to some amount. (those two are our local "alternative weekly" papers)

Because my previous nomination on run of the mill establishments have been met with comments like "there are two dozen sources", I am addressing regarding the large number of citations on this article. At the time of writing this argument the article boasts 41 cites (some cites with more than one sources)

24 portlandmercury.com; of those fifteen of are specifically titled "things to do" which are routine lists of events. 13 wweek.com (Willamette Week) The alternative weeklies together represent 37 of references. Two Portland travel guides listings. Many of them are "the list of bests", and events list.

Policy based consideration for sources of this nature:

  • Foot notes #3 and #7 in WP:N addressing Routine announcements, or series of coverage in same periodicals and journalists.

WP:ORGDEPTH examples of what we consider trivial coverage: coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies

inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists

Graywalls (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I request the quality of AfD argument and participants' comment and relevance to applicable guidelines given weight over tallying up "votes". This is per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DEFINECONSENSUS. Thank you. Graywalls (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article has fluffed up even more with more lists of events that amounts to things like this Billboard.com article that amounts to nothing more than a line item that shows Holocene was a stop in Ionnalee's tour. Basically the article's creator is continuing to stack it up with these entries. Itemized lists of events held at an event center does not add notability. Graywalls (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

additional source analysis on the article's talk page Graywalls (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think it's worth noting that the circulation of the Oregonian is 170-185,000 while the Willamette Week is 65,000 and Portland Mercury is only 45,000 in evaluating WP:AUD. Graywalls (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator): I've expanded the article quite a bit, and I'm only on page 6 of ~5,790 results for "Holocene"+"Portland" at Google. Sources include books and newspapers, and while I acknowledge there are many passing mentions as an event venue, I believe there's enough coverage to justify a short article about the business' history, events and activities, and reception. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note, I combed through many Google returns but I've not yet browsed the Oregonian archives. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those are things that should have been done prior to the article even being created, are they not? You created this article in February 2019, so not much time has passed to affect the availability of sources sine the time the article was created. I am not seeing a sufficient evidence has been presented to support its likely a significant coverage intended for significant audience exists on the business that is the subject of this article. Graywalls (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't even understand what you're trying to say here. I'm sorry, but you and I aren't really working well together lately so I'm just going to drop from this thread and let other editors weigh in here and elsewhere we've gone back and forth. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I’m afraid I just don’t get the special thing there seems to be on Wikipedia about venues in Portland. There always seems to be a few editors convinced that a night club or restaurant in that city is notable because it’s really well known on the Portland scene and has hundreds of local refs to back it up. This sounds like a great place but there are dozens of similar places in every city in the world and they’re mostly not notable, even if warmly endorsed by their local press. Mccapra (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG, well structured, informative, reliably sourced. DrewieStewie (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think it's important editors are aware the nominating editor has been harassing and hounding the article creator and nominating multiple articles for deletion that Another Believer has created. That ongoing discussion is here on the Administrators' notice board. --Kbabej (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Another Believer and DrewieStewie covered the reasons to keep this article well. As DrewieStewie stated, this article "Meets GNG, well structured, informative, reliably sourced." There is specific coverage from Willamette Week and The Oregonian in multiple articles. --Kbabej (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I always conduct a preliminary research before an AfD, but its not perfect. I'm aware there are mentions of this business in the Oregonian, such as "youth organization (Altamura, who books bands to play at the Southeast club Holocene, is also managing director of Music in the Schools)." as a brief mention within an article about something else. 2016 a brief mention "At Holocene on Saturday night, you can dance to 50 years of summer jams. We look forward to hearing something from the Grease soundtrack." among a list of other items. 2012. There are quite a few mentions in a passage like this but I didn't find anything with Significant coverage in the Oregonian or other papers with readership reach outside of the greater Portland area. The alternative papers Willamette Week and Portland Mercury will likely have things about local businesses in a greater depth as they're papers with great local emphasis. If you happen to have the link to significant coverage in the Oregonian, or greater reaching papers, please don't hesitate to share the links. Graywalls (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GNG met, including The Oregonian, newspaper of record for the Portland area; also mentioned in the books Moon Portland and in Best Places: Portland. I should note that the nominator of this article attacking the creator for stuff he "should have done before creation" is inappropriate and un-collegial ☆ Bri (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Space: 1999. -- Scott Burley (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Space: 1999 vehicles

List of Space: 1999 vehicles (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)

More WP:FANCRUFT material. Fine for a Fan wiki, but not here. Not notable outside of the show. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major feature of a major series. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- poorly sourced, overly detailed fancruft that seems to have got lost on its way to Wikia. Reyk YO! 13:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cruft John M Wolfson (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect To Space: 1999 Plausible cause for redirect, keeps article history, this article has to do with that show so redirect. See these links {{1} {2}, this is where my reasoning comes from for a redirect. DrewieStewie (talk) 07:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge The main article has already a lot of detail and minutia, so it counts against merging, but I vote against the simple deletion, merging is still a better solution. If deletion is decided, then a Redirect is also preferable than it, as per DrewieStewie Garlicolive (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge or redirect to main article. Spyder212 (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Cherry Ballard

Sharon Cherry Ballard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG, and I don't think her roles are significant enough to meet WP:NACTOR. signed, Rosguill talk 00:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LesPAC

LesPAC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NCORP, all coverage appears to be PR and routine business news. signed, Rosguill talk 00:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nom is correct; the article's sources do not meet WP:NCORP on account of them being either trivial in nature, standard business announcements, or press releases (the French communique). In addition, none of the sources I read attested to the notability or significance of the subject—I doubt being "Quebec’s first-ever classified ad website" qualifies as being a credible claim to significance. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sources outside of newswire and likewise. John M Wolfson (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ditto to above, additionally fails WP:GNG, not known to a wide audience DrewieStewie (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly does not meet notability criteria. Some secondary sources from Quebec-based newspapers, such as the Journal de Montréal, Journal de Québec, and the Montreal Gazette, but all seem to be ads at the same time... Spyder212 (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Scott Burley (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa Dragon Boat Festival

Ottawa Dragon Boat Festival (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)

Semi-advertorialized article about a local event, not reliably sourced as the subject of enough media coverage to clear our notability standards for events. This is actually a separate thing from the Ottawa Ice Dragon Boat Festival that I listed for AFD yesterday (this one's summer, that one's winter), but it isn't any better referenced as noteworthy -- the references are its own self-published website, a YouTube video clip of the organizers speaking, and a corporate blog, none of which are reliable or notability-supporting sources that would get it over WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG. As always, the notability test for a thing like this is not that its existence is technically metaverified by its own self-published web presence -- it hinges on receiving media coverage in sources independent of its own self-published web presence. Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although could be better sourced, meets WP:GNG as a major, annual, local event in a country's capital. DrewieStewie (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The ticket to getting a poorly sourced article kept is not just to theorize that maybe better sources might exist somewhere — anybody could always say that about absolutely anything, even total hoaxes, if all they had to do was say it. If you want to assert that something passes WP:GNG, you have to show hard evidence that GNG-passing sources do exist to salvage the article with, not just theorize that it might be possible. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Quick search shows numerous secondary sources discussing the subject, including CBC News, CTV News, and the Ottawa Citizen. Event takes place annually in the national capital of Canada. Meets general notability criteria. Spyder212 (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep , withdrawn by nom (non-admin closure) signed, Rosguill talk 01:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Osman Zolan

Osman Zolan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think the subject meets WP:GNG, and as the mayor of a municipality does not meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. Both of the sources provided in the article had broken links for me–searching online, I was able to find some coverage in local sources of dubious reliability, which also don't appear to say anything other than routine coverage of political announcements. signed, Rosguill talk 00:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A mayor of Denizli, a city of more than 500,000 poppulation, might be notable through WP:GNG as well. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Denizli is an important city and Zolan isn’t just a city mayor he’s mayor of the metropolitan region. The US equivalent would be mayor of greater urban Atlanta or Austin. There are multiple refs to him in leading national daily newspapers Hŭrriyet, Sabah and Cumhuriyet. Mccapra (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_April_20&oldid=1142614846"