Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 27 March	29 March >

Guide to deletion

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 speedy delete in accordance with WP:G11. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Particl

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

Cryptocurrency that's not notable. Їис́єӏ (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional spam. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 11:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is doubtful that reliable sources could establish notability. --mikeu ^talk 12:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I spent a while looking for any sources at all, let alone established notability, found none. Dr-Bracket (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete presently a G11 - David Gerard (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Political

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

Doesn't meet WP:NORG. Every link is dead, can't verify if any were substantial enough to count towards notability. Searching finds nothing else. Surprisingly, the org's own website now seems to be an online clothing store. Ref 5, originally a primary source to some page at the org's website is now a 404 error at the clothing store. The article is an orphan, most of it can't be substantiated, and there are no sources to improve it and validate the subject is notable. MB 23:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. IABot freaked out at one of those ref links which mostly didn’t look very promising anyway.
Delete. Not notable. Kablammo (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't find any mentions to the organisation at all. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:28, 3 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ZomBees

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

Short film with questionable notability-the director's notability is questionable as well. It's a short film with nothing notable going for it (even if I do have to admit the summary is amusing), I don't think any of the directors other films have pages either. Anyway if not delete just a redirect/merge to the director. Wgolf (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this five minute film has a lack of coverage and does not pass WP:GNG with no external reviews at IMDb and no entry at all at Rotten Tomatoes fir example Atlantic306 (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only source in the article is IMDb - WP:UGC. I've searched for better sources, with and without the director's name as a search term, but can't find any coverage in reliable sources - just a few blogs mentioning it. Fails WP:GNG.GirthSummit _(blether) 14:33, 3 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. There's a clear consensus that the page does need some clean up work and possible reorganization, however, there's also an overwhelming consensus that this article does not qualify for deletion. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 03:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum

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

This article is merely a collection of news clippings with innuendo about improper funding sources for the Leave.EU campaign, and various Brits meeting various Russians. The lead states there is an ongoing investigation by the UK electoral commission, citing a source from November 2017. Did they post any conclusions? The article doesn't tell. Delete as WP:ATTACK and WP:NOTDIARY until some evidence of Russian interference in Brexit actually appears. — JFG ^talk 22:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge – I think this is a WP:PAGEDECIDE question. The topic is significant enough to include in the encyclopedia and still discussed by reliable sources right up to this day (see Bloomberg and New Yorker sources below):

London School of Economics (opinion): The extent of Russian-backed fraud means the referendum is invalid
The Washington Post quoting David Miliband: The overwhelming evidence of malign and multiple Russian interventions in western democratic processes, including the Brexit referendum, have been designed to destabilize democratic rule.
Reuters: YouTube found no evidence of Russian interference in Brexit referendum
The New Yorker: In Parliament, however, both Labour and Conservative members have repeatedly questioned whether Banks’s dealings with the Russians in the lead-up to the referendum amounted to an influence campaign by a foreign power. In November, 2018, when the National Crime Agency investigation was announced, David Lammy, a Labour M.P., demanded that Britain’s departure from the E.U. be “put on hold until we know the extent of these crimes against our democracy.” Tom Watson, the deputy leader of the Labour Party, has called for a “Mueller-style inquiry” into whether the “referendum result was stolen.” The Conservative M.P. Damian Collins has demanded a broader inquiry into Russian interference in British affairs.
Bloomberg: Social media influence campaigns or direct cyber attacks are already thought to have impacted key votes such as the U.S. election in 2016 and the U.K’s Brexit referendum
Newsweek: British MP demands 'Mueller-style' investigation into Brexit over Russia inteference
The Guardian: Police will not examine claims of Russian meddling in Brexit vote
Kyiv Post: Lawyers to cite Russian interference in major Brexit legal challenge
Sky News (opinion): Sky Views: UK has a duty to investigate potential Russian interference
Al Jazeera (opinion): Britain needs its own Mueller investigation: The British political elite has ignored mounting evidence of interference and illegality in the Brexit vote ... [MPs'] recent report spoke of evidence of "Russian state-sponsored attempts to influence elections in the US and the UK through social media, efforts of private companies to do the same, and law-breaking by certain Leave campaign groups in the UK's EU referendum in their use of social media". and 2: Was the Brexit vote free and fair? We discuss data theft, Russian interference, and illegal campaign spending during the Brexit referendum

That said, there are definitely problems with it as written per nom, and I'm not sure if it should remain a stand alone article or be merged with a redirect to another article. I think either would be fine. Leviv ich 23:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The House of Commons select committee documented extensive evidence of "unconventional war" in its interim report. Its final report is here, with the subchapter heading "Foreign influence in political campaigns". It then says:

“

There has been clear and proven Russian influence in foreign elections, and we highlighted evidence in our Interim Report of such attempts in the EU Referendum.

”

This said, I've no idea why the article was changed to bullet points. It needs updating, not deletion. The basis for this nomination is mistaken. Wik idea 10:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant chapter in the UK report talks mostly about the Skripal affair and financial dealings of Arron Banks; while it notes some Russian activity on Twitter, it does not reach any conclusions regarding a potential Russian influence on Brexit. — JFG ^talk 04:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true but I think it's WP:OR and irrelevant here. Any evaluation of whether the report actually supports/proves/establishes/shows anything is beside the point. It's a topic that has received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable secondary sources; it should have an article or at least a redirect. The content should represent all significant viewpoints, and per the list of 10 RSes above, there are at least two significant viewpoints ("evidence" and "no evidence"). Leviv ich 05:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while merge seems possible, it is not necessary – The nominating editor has ..., along with others, at Timelines related to Russian interference, such as Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, more than a simple one-off Wikipedia:IDHT. A simple quick google search shows their interconnection; with even Donald Trump Jr. stating ‘Brexit and my father’s election are one and the same’. A previous (10 Jan 2018) intertwined example: Russian bid to influence Brexit vote detailed in new US Senate report:

“

They reference University of Edinburgh research showing more than 400 Russian-run Twitter accounts that had been active in the US election had also been actively posting about Brexit.

”

And the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee stated there are “parallels and interconnections in abundance”. Many more examples can be given, if actually needed. I welcome constructive collaboration on improving the article, and the topic. X1\ (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: Note: I have partially restored the sentence user:Levivich deleted, as the sentences didn't make as much sense without the preceding sentence. I see the strong Keep consensus is somewhat validating as to why I would have described the history of the Timelines as I did. My intent was to be helpful and concise to the AfD reviewers. Maybe this history was unnecessary? I don't know what people are expected to write at these. X1\ (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of significant and reliable sources to establish notability.Charles (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important, notable, and well-sourced. Thepatioisdirty (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Article could be improved to eliminate "weasel words", but the sourcing is strong and the subject very notable (frighteningly so).TH1980 (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic of this article readily meets the general requirements for notability, and there's clearly plenty of scope for a substantial article on this topic, so merging it elsewhere doesn't make much sense. The content needs work, but that's not in itself a case for deletion. Alarichall (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only this is well sourced and highly notable subject, that was one of the most successful operations by Russian intelligence in recent times. They hurt UK so bad... My very best wishes (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of it being proved or not, I'll agree with the other users that a merge is not necessary, considering the availability of sources. Garlicolive (talk) 03:07, 3 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Djanan Turan

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

None of the provided sources appear to be RS, I was unable to find anything online that would meet WP:GNG searching in both English and Turkish. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like an interesting musician. The Barış Manço event would have been fun I'm sure. May achieve notability level in future. Does not come close to meeting any WP:MUSIC criterion at this time, and so deletion seems appropriate as WP is not Bandcamp or My Space. Rupert Clayton (talk) 06:29, 3 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dorzhi Tyheev

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

Was deprodded without rationale or improvement. One thing I can guarantee is that this person did not win the US Medal of honor (as claimed in the infobox). While receiving many decorations, they do not fit with WP:NSOLDIER, neither does his rank. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The reason Medal of Honor was linked in the infobox was due to someone's mistranslation of Russian to English. I have corrected it to point towards Medal "For Courage" (Russia), which was awarded to him. MarkZusab (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject of this article has received coverage from Buryad Unen ([1]) as a "war hero" and I believe other foreign language sources might also exist. MarkZusab (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how he passes GNG - even with the Buryad Unen piece. The article itself seems to be machine translate (probably google translate) from the Russian wiki. Icewhiz (talk) 07:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsubishi F-3

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

Speculative fork of Mitsubishi X-2 Shinshin, and creator admits they doesn't know who the manufacturer will be. Far too soon for such an article. BilCat (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON. F-3, if it launches, probably will be quite different from the X-2. However, at the moment F-3 is only speculation - it hasn't been funded, and Japan is debating between buying American fighters (or various modifications to American fighters - e.g. a F-22 with F-35 avionics - [2][3]) and starting a domestic (probably at Mitsubishi, and probably F-3 considering F-1 and F-2, but maybe they will be original?) program. There are speculative pieces on a possible F-3 program, but that's all that they are. Once Japan actually funds or commits to fund a program (which will be years prior to the jet taking air - 5-15 years probably) - then it will probably appropriate to start an article. At the moment we have Possible talk on what a possible F-3 program might look like if it actually starts. Icewhiz (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Icewhiz.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. Some info on future developments could be covered at Mitsubishi X-2 Shinshin. This is far too speculative to be a stand-alone article now. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hello everyone. I'm the creator of the F-3 article and I agree with the concerns that it may be still too early for the F-3 to have its own article. I was surprised myself when the draft of the F-3 was accepted as an article because I never submitted it as at the time I was still looking for any information for the article. A user by the name "AntanO" did the article submission for me. However, I believe the article still has potential and can be useful in the future when more information is found. I still have some information to contribute but unfortunately my biggest problem at the moment is time. I'm in college and I can only edit whenever I have enough time available for me. Most of the information that I want to contribute come from the Japanese Ministry of Defense and ATLA website [4][5], however, since they're in Japanese it would take time to translate the text to English so I can read them. As a contributor, I'm still learning new things in Wikipedia and I will still continue to improve this article however I can to meet Wikipedia's standards. I appreciate the concerns that were put forth and with it I promise to do better in the future. I edit things that come to mind (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I edit things that come to mind, I will copy the content from the article to a subpage of my sandbox. You will be able to use the content in a few the future when the article is created. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hello, everyone. I've changed my mind and would like to delete the article instead of keeping it. I did some more research and found out that so far Mitsubishi is only supplying the XF-9 engine to the F-3. It also appears that the F-3 has not been listed in Japan's 2019 Defense Budget. I still believe there is potential for this topic so instead I will request for the article to be moved to my userpage (under the userfication process) after it gets deleted so I can further improve it when more information is available. I am also open to any sort of help and assistance (advice's, collaboration, etc.) as I'm still relatively new to all this and would greatly appreciate and benefit from these new experiences. I edit things that come to mind (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTJUSTYET___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 19:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In agreement with eveyone else that this is WP:TOOSOON. Most of the article is about the Mitsubishi X-2 Shinshin, the tender proposals are still out, contracts have not been let, and even the title of the article is speculative as it is only speculated that Mitsubishi would lead the project as the primary contributor to the X-2's development, and we've heard that story many times before. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 4 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 I withdraw the nomination as it does meet WP:NFOOTBALL with a previous team. (non-admin closure) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Saavedra

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as Central Texas Lobos does not play in a fully professional league, and also fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would like to point out that he does indeed pass WP:NFOOTBALL as he made his professional debut with Club León on 18 September 2013 against C.D. Guadalajara in a Copa MX match. Source JTtheOG (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He absolutely passes all of the checks. He has 5 years professional experience and over 100 appearances. [6] AndersLindergaard (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - appears to meet WP:NFOOTBALL, although most of his appearances are in the semi-pro third division (Serie A). Giant Snowman 08:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: is semi-pro third division acceptable for WP:NFOOTBALL? Central Texas Lobos FC plays in the Gulf Coast Premier League which is is a United States Adult Soccer Association affiliated Amateur Elite League and is not included in the many professional leagues listed for the USA that the guideline sets as a criteria for inclusion. Is there another reason why WP:NFOOTBALL would be met for this bio? I missed the previous comment about playing for Club León. It does indeed meet WP:NFOOTBALL so I will withdraw the nomination and close this AfD. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JP Gates

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

Fails WP:NBASE and WP:NCOLLATH GPL93 (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gates is a well known college baseball two-way player. There have been many reliable documents written about Gates and this should be kept. Thanks, UNC2 (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Cubbie15fan (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fits criteria needed.174.81.64.197 (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate on how it meets notability criteria? GPL93 (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBASE due to limited sourcing. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - I wish people here would use their brains. Some know of him and he's young, so he's notable. The article will only grow as his career does. I thought this was a space for everyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurugby54 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't WP:CRYSTALBALL. Secondly, the "some people know him" rationale doesn't mean GNG is established, you have to prove through reliable sources that the subject is notable enough to merit an article. This is especially the case in baseball, where even being a high draft pick (which Gates is currently not) is not a guarantee of ever making the Majors or otherwise meeting the standards of WP:NBASE. GPL93 (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly doesn't pass either WP:NBASEBALL or WP:NCOLLATH.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:07, 1 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 Lady Sarah Chatto#Marriage and issue. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Chatto

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

Non-notable minor member of the nobility. Previously discussed at AfD and merged and redirected as a result of that discussion. Argument for recreation was "he is clearly notable and 24th in line of succession to the British Throne" but when this article was merged and redirected he was higher in line. He's been pushed down to 24th by the births of the Queen's great-grandchildren. If anything, he's less notable now than he was 10 years ago. DrKay (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect Notability is supposed to be permanent not temporary and so his being pushed down the line of succession doesn't really impact his notability claim. Now that he's an adult, unlike when it was discussed 10 years ago, there does seem to some additional coverage of him. He's not quite at a GNG keep (I don't see RS covering him outside of People) but seems possible he could get there. It is possible to be notable simply for being famous and if RS cover him so should we. Since that's not (yet) the case I would suggest maintaining the merge/redirect of AfD2. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect Notability is not automatic regardless who your relatives or distant relatives are. There are not substantive sources that discuss him outside of having famous family. Reywas92^Talk 22:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect I don't see why should Samuel Chatto have his own article, as Princess Margaret's grandson through Lady Sarah Chatto. Neither he has a title nor it is expected he will ever have one. In my opinion, from George V's descendants, only Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick has the potential to get his own article back. That article should be restored before even thinking about creating one for Samuel Chatto. And after Lord Downpatrick, maybe Xan Windsor, Lord Culloden and Lady Cosima Windsor, when they reach adulthood or if Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster succeeds as Duke of Gloucester before that. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Weak Keep while most of his notability comes as a relation to the British royal family, he is talked about a lot in the press, at least in the sense of being a socialite. While I don't believe he is extremely notable, I believe he passes WP:Bio. Here's some links to him in the press, if that helps (although I will say most of these talk about both him and his brother, not just him): [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unrelated to the nomination, but I am suspicious/concerned that the author of this article is a sock of a blocked user (Emily Khine). I just thought I should mention that here prior to starting an investigation. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect. Creation by a banned or blocked user. Chatto has no substantial achievements or notoriety (and yes, I do mean notoriety). Celia Homeford (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect as not (WP:GNG) not quite at a keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gristleking (talk • contribs) 02:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every distant relative of the Queen is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being 24th in line to the world's best-known throne is notable. Not notable as a relative of the Queen, but as a great-grandson of George VI and a grandson of Princess Margaret. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 3 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Swap

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

Article about a company that fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.

There's not enough WP:SIGCOV to have a page at this time i think it's just WP:TOOSOON. Note: This is the second nomination and issues in the first were still not addressed during recreation. Lapablo (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: An article moved into mainspace by the WP:SPA creator. The coverage that exists tends to be start-up publicity hung on the firm founder's previous tourism activity. Considered as a company, this is not sufficient for WP:NCORP. Considered alternatively as a software application, the "Best new mobile app" Silver Award for April 2018 [17] does not look inherently WP:GNG notable. I suggest WP:SALT so that any 3rd return, should that be sought, is organised via WP:AFC. AllyD (talk) 07:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only possibly acceptable source is the independent. But it's from their Business Insider section, and Business Insider generally sources its material from PRweb. Ina ny case, it's a self-serving interview. More and more, the usual standards for independent journalism are unreliable. I now tend to judge not by the name of the publication, but by the nature of the article. In any case, this is a spa who first tried unsuccesfully to write an article about the firm's CEO, after an earlier article about the firm by a spa was deleted. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still not notable (WP:NCORP), still an article created for promotional purposes (WP:NOTPROMO). Policy or guideline, take your pick, but this doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. Bakazaka (talk) 01:05, 3 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Textile Today

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

No independent Reliable sources in the article which can establish notability of this article. Other sources provided (besides the subject's own website) in the article are only talking about a conference/seminar (a press release) organised by the subject of this article. ~ Nahid ^Talk 18:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, not notable magazine. Kayser Ahmad (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nahid, No notability --SalmanZ (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails Wikipedia:COMPANY___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 19:04, 4 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. Materialscientist (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jayanta Nath

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

Non-notable singer/director, their only supposedly notable film (Hriday Kapowa Gaan) hasn't received the necessary coverage to pass WP:NFILM, nor have the others, so fails the various N criteria for creative people. Praxidicae (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable Indian singer, hasn't released any notable albums. When googling nothing comes about his person [on the news]. Fails WP:SINGER ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nawras Abu Saleh

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

Film director I can't find much notability for, he only has done short films it appears and none of them seem notable. Wgolf (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I usually check to see if the articles were deleted before-looks like this one I didn't and he was voted as keep. Well, let's see if it remains the same this time. Wgolf (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Does the Arabic-language Wikipedia have an article on him? If so, it might have useful references. Have you searched for the Arabic version of his name? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I just checked it actually looks the same as this one almost. Except for a picture. Wgolf (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Looks like a somewhat notable director who meets WP:DIRECTOR. IMDb cites 4 films directed. See also comments above. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB proves only that a film exists, not that it is notable, or that a film creator is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Abu Saleh has made several short films, but there is no indication that nay of them was notable. The only coverage of him that I have found: "Oversized Coat, from Amman-based Palestinian director Nawras Abu Saleh. It looks at Palestinian life between 1987 and 2011, including the two intifadas (uprisings) against Israeli occupation.", "“Oversized Coat”. The 2013 film by Jordan-based Palestinian director Nawras Abu Saleh examines Palestinian life between 1987 and 2011, a period of failed peace efforts and two anti-Israeli uprisings." was shown in Gaza in 2016. Similar coverage of this showing in a new film venue in Gaza in several languages. Also a one or two even briefer mentions of him in other contexts. the one solid source is from Anadolu Agency : Palestinian director wants to shoot movie in Jerusalem; 'I want to shoot a movie in Jerusalem when it is liberated,' says Nawras Abu Saleh, but it is about his political ideas, it does not support notability as a film creator. Fails Wikipedia:FILMMAKER, FAILS WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Except this [ http://www.karabukderinhaber.com/haber/4642/filistinli-yonetmen-nawras-abu-saleh-kbude.html one source] (which is not enough) I couldn't find anything else. Sdmarathe (talk) 04:14, 3 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Nicolas

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

WP:PROMO article of a Presidential candidate who didn't win. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Only elected officeholders are presumed notable. Lapablo (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That is a huge PR piece if I've ever seen one. It reads like a PR flyer hand out and is overly promotional. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:49, 4 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FameMix

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

Spammy paid article by a serial self promoter (Ivan250igan), salted and deleted many times here and cross wiki (see Famemix.) this isn't notable and it's nothing more than an attempt to legitimize a vanity spammer. Also a massive tou violation. No amount of copyediting can change this. Praxidicae (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. WP:G5. --Hiwilms (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, for reasons already stated. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Many of the sources cited are reliable secondary sources for that region with significant coverage of the subject, more so AllAfrica.com which is a reliable source. Although some of the content may appear promotional, that can be remedied by editing. However, that in itself is not ground for deletion.Tamsier (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this is a directory listing. this and this are both written by the same person, I'll note that very same person is a coworker of the creator of this article, who is globally locked as a sock of the creator of FameMix, this is completely questionable as far as reliability goes and the rest are either from FameMix directly or not coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the allAfrica article is copied from NewTimes...so, it's literally the same thing.Praxidicae (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I concur with Praxidicae's assessment of the sources, and aside from the sourcing issues, the copyediting required would involve removing and rewriting pretty much all of the little text that is in the article. I also respectfully disagree with the CSD G5 decline, as the guidelines state "...and that have no substantial edits by others...". Please see this diff which incorporates ALL the edits since the article was last touched by it's creator. The only edits were either maintenance tags, ref expansions, and some pretty minor copyediting, absolutely nothing I would call "substantial". Waggie (talk) 19:37, 3 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Radio-controlled drifting

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Article with no inline references appears to be WP:OR from a long string of WP:SPAs and IP-editors. Two references are given from a minor motorsport magazine and one paragraph in a children's book. A quick Google search shows that this subject does indeed exist but basically every reference is from a website selling remote-controlled cars. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article needs to be properly referenced so that it may be considered. Does not pass WP:GNG. Lubbad85 (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two (song)

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

I don't believe this meets any criterion of WP:Music. The closest is possibly #1 in the "Recordings" section, but I can't find multiple reliable, independent, etc sources that mention the single except either as an aside for the album or in some sort of listing. This includes the soures in the article, none of which appear to meet the standards of criterion #1. I cannot see any justification for its relevance per the aforementioned notability guideline. Green green greenred 07:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of microbreweries

AfDs for this article:

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

I am not convinced by arguments in the prior AfD. Bottom line is there are hundreds of thousands of microbreweries in the world, they are small businesses, and while we are NOTPAPER, gigantic lists like this serve no purpose that categories don't do better. But even if we say that size is not a problem, there are other issues: 1) the lead states this is a list of notable microbreweries, but it contains entries of dubious notability - red links, etc. Most entries there are not referenced. From WP:NORG, most microbreweries are too small to be notable anyway. If this list would be a complete list of microbreweries, it would be 90% red links or rather no links, as it would just list non-notable companies. If it was to list notable ones only this requires substantial effort to vet entries in it. Just looking at a few sample companies listed in it I have serious doubts half of them if not more meet WP:NORG. Some lists, even big ones, make sense. Lists of small businesses do not (which is why we have List of restaurant chains but not List of restaurants (it is just a redirect to the former), and why List of breweries is fine, but not a list of microbreweries. PS. The way to discuss craft brews in encyclopedic context, IMHO, is through articles on individual breweries that pass NORG through the virtue of coverage/awards, and through national-level overview articles like Craft beer in South Korea. Seriously, lists should be useful - what is the usefulness of such lists of small businesses? Particularly in alcohol business, which means no Internet sales and in 99% cases, local customers only? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - this is TOUGH. For one, a category serves the same purpose as this article, but that could be said for a lot of articles. I ran into List of Venezuelans recently (and this is not anti-Venezuela, there are like articles for many other nationalities and topics) and I found it absurd. But at the same time, I think the norm on WP is to have lists. As long as each entry has its own WP article, I don't see any issue with keeping a list of 'notable' microbreweries. I'm not going to rm the redlinks since that often gets pushback, but I think on a list like this, it only makes sense to do so. Anyway, I don't have an issue with keeping the list of notable microbreweries, keeping in mind this should not become a list of redlinks and we should not ignore rules on notability. I understand your argument... and yes, there should be a clearly defined definition to be on this list. But I'm not convinced it should be deleted. sorry if that didn't make sense. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list can essentially break down into other list pages, such as List of breweries in the United States, and other countries. Those are breweries rather than microbreweries, but in this case, I don't think that matters. The difference between the two terms relates to amount they produce, and so in reality, there are far more microbreweries out there than non-micros. I'd rather see List of breweries in the United States, which has other lists like List of breweries in California, etc., rather than this page, which more or less serves as a parent cat. Also, per WP:WTAF, I don't like to include redlinks or nonexistent pages in lists like this, but what's especially weird about this page is that the fact that this is a list about necessarily small businesses, there's a bit of a contradiction. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 17:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The rationales presented by the nom are less than convincing. AfD is not for cleanup. Getting rid of redlinked and unlinked entries is a simple task. If the nom has an issue with the notability of entries with articles, nominate them for deletion. As for usefulness, there is no Category:Microbreweries, only Category:Breweries. Though that could be remedied, that in no way precludes having a list as well. What this list does need is more info, e.g. location, year of establishment, defunctness/"functness", etc. to really justify its existence. Again an issue of cleanup, not deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN and of course clean up to remove the non-notable entries. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – An unstainable list that is extremely subject to WP:POV. As of a Google search, as shown here [18] there were over 7,000 new establishments generated just here in the United States in 2018. Which ones make this list in Wikipedia and which ones do not is subject to a bias consensus.  The ones that are notable will be included here as separate articles. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The list doesn't seek to include every microbrewery, just the notable ones. I've deleted the redlinked and unlinked entries and added some info. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:LISTN, numerous books, journals that discuss these. ps. it might be nice if this was in the form of a sortable table so that, for example, wikireaders from Scotland can readily find the mbs situated in their country. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This is a useful list, and despite the nominator's thoughtful write-up, I don't see any good reason to delete it. What I'm trying to decide is if only microbreweries that have their own Wikipedia articles should be listed here. I think it would be okay if other breweries were also included, if each one had a reliable third-party reference to prove that it actually exists. — Mudwater^(Talk) 23:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – but restrict the list to microbreweries that are notable by wikipedia standards - i.e have articles. If you want to add others start by writing the article. --Bduke (talk) 07:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – About the question of which breweries should be included in the list, in the event that it's decided that the page should be kept, there is now a separate discussion, at Talk:List of microbreweries#Criteria for inclusion. — Mudwater^(Talk) 22:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That many blue links, it aids in navigation, so perfectly valid list article. Dream Focus 15:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN This is a worthwhile and useful list for readers. Makes navigating the encyclopaedia easier. WP:Not paper The prior AFD and its reasoning and result should have settled this issue. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the above. None of the delete's above really nail a valid delete reason. Deletion isn't a solution for something that is large and could continuously grow. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 05:05, 4 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-Legendary Pokémon

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

PRODed by Kirbanzo with the rationale Not a subject suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, as it is purely about a fictional work and is better suited for a fansite. WP:IINFO, WP:NOTGUIDE, which was removed by the creator. I basically agree with this; much like with the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garchomp Evolution Line, there aren't reliable sources showing significant coverage of this group. Nearly everything out there is about how to play the game, get the pokémon, etc., which is why this page is the same. Moreover, per Bulbapedia, this is a fan-generated category, not an official grouping. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete page seems like an entry from a fan wiki about Pokémon, and not really suitable for a Wikipedia Article. Jeb³ _{Talk at me here} 16:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my same reasoning at Garchomp Evolution Line. Praxidicae (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to List of Pokémon is fine, but I'll note that the creator has redirected a number of pages for these pseudo-legendaries to this new page away from that list. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the previous targets of those redirects. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my PROD rationale as well as nom. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 14:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fan-made category. No reason to keep. InvalidOS talk 16:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important Category on the subject of Pokémon 19:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.127.33 ([[User talk:209.237.127.33#top|talk]) — 209.237.127.33 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Sockpuppet vote removed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I will try to fix the problems you guys have listed, but I believe that this page is both important and necessary. Professor Profession (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for one week for abusing multiple accounts (and IPs) here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perhaps we should improve this page to better fit the Wikipedia tone, but I think that it is a good topic. jacobhartj7 (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC) — jacobhartj7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sockpuppet vote removed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page needs some work, but I love it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:442:4580:2190:8CBB:68AF:1863:D1B1 (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC) — 2601:442:4580:2190:8CBB:68AF:1863:D1B1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Removed sockpuppet vote. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree, this page is a category of Pokémon, and shouldn't be deleted MemeLord888 —Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC) — MemeLord888 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Removed sockpuppet vote. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable outside the game itself --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:FANCRUFT. Nothing else. Ajf773 (talk) 23:51, 2 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) 17:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CitySpring Infrastructure Trust

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Aoziwe with the following rationale " I too am not convinced as the notability of this subject. However, given their relationship to Keppel Infrastructure Trust and it seems that they are in part a sovereign wealth fund with foreign investments, I think there should be a broader community discussion at AfD before if it is to be deleted.". Fair enough, let's see if we can dig up anything to salvage this WP:YELLOWPAGES-like entry. WP:BEFORE reveals just passing mentions. The most independent one is in [19], but it does not seem likely to satisfy in-depth coverage - just a definition, in few sentences as best, as far as I can make it out from the snippet. Other sources are in passing, press-releases, and such. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability. WP:TNT. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a subsidiary of a SWF shouldn't be a criteria for notability (no inherited notability as per Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). Only recent notable event in Singapore news is a merger of a Keppel Infrastructure Trust. Other news are routine financial announcements and analysis. [20] robertsky (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cape May Brewing Company

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

Basically an advertisement. I tried to make this into a NPOV article, but I found if I removed the promotionalism there was nothing much left, except a large number of mostly local awards. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this advertisement. Trillfendi (talk) 05:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How does it seem like an advertisement? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete/merge. It's a pretty nicely written entry, and the creator doesn't appear to have a COI. But it does seem to fail WP:NORG. All sources are either primary (press-releases) or come from WP:AUD sources (city/county level). Likewise, they have a bunch of awards, but they seem to be local (at least, they don't seem to have won any national or international award, see also Category:Beer awards). At best. I'd suggest merge to a craft beer in the United States or a related article if one exists (hmmm, Brewing in Oregon/List of microbreweries). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that article would be List of wineries, breweries, and distilleries in New Jersey, which is pretty big to begin with, and doesn't have room for individual beers. Could you check the article again User:Piotrus? I've added more to the article today. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me any coverage by non-local sources? As in, state-wide, not city-wide or county-wide? Or any national or international awards won? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would be refs 10, 11, 14, 16, and 20-23, which include national NBC affiliates, Forbes, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and the NJ department of Agriculture. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Opposed from the author - I've added a few more sources. I disagree with the premise that there isn't much left but local awards. The brewery has won awards from around the country. It's also the third largest brewery in New Jersey, possibly the second. I'll do my best adding more sources so it doesn't seem so much like an advertisement. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NORG. There is some press coverage but most of the sourcing is too close to the subject or is clearly promotional. There is also far too much detail for a relatively new company that doesn't have all that much press coverage.Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NBC and ABC affiliates throughout the country? Forbes? Philadelphia Business Journal? How are they too close? How does it come across as promotional? And why delete if the information is valid? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few more sources, including the NJ Department of Agriculture, and various newspapers. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Wikipedia:AUD satisfied: at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. Facts presented in non-promo way.Djflem (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems fine. Notability asserted well enough as "third-largest craft brewery in New Jersey" and "Their beer is available at over 700 locations in New Jersey and Pennsylvania." Awards. Sources regional, state, etc. Well-written, too. --Doncram (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG notability since it is only covered by local sources. Also promotional in nature as stated by the nominator.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10 (talk · contribs), please read above. There are sources from Forbes, NBC Los Angeles, and the NJ Department of Agriculture. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that none of those sources constitute significant coverage as required by WP:AUD. For example, the Forbes article jsut has a few quotes about the brewery's owner, the article itself is not about the brewery.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUD states: The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary., which this article clearly satisfies.Djflem (talk) 09:50, 1 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. This was a tough one, made no easier by the timeline of participation. On the plus side, pretty much everyone here agreed that the main content of this page belongs somewhere on the project. The disagreement was about where, what form, and how expansive it should be. That is, this discussion was largely concerned with either to Keeping the article or keeping the content at a section and Redirecting there; I've considered the few other !votes in light of that.

It's also worth mentioning here that this AfD was discussed at ANI, which lead to a surge of input after the third relisting. More input is generally a good thing, especially when there was a paucity for the previous two weeks. There do not appear to be any bad-faith participants and there don't appear to have been negative consequences (e.g. canvassing) for the discussion (besides, AfD is not a vote). ANI is still bad.

With all that input, both sides mostly presented good arguments with strong foundations. I was particularly interested in the discussion over sources, and was thankful for the detailed analyses. Those favoring keeping the article noted a significant contribution to her field that has received broad coverage. The main claims against the sources, however, are either that they weren't sufficiently reliable (e.g. not first party) or that they didn't sufficiently cover the person rather than breed. Those are very strong arguments that did a good job explaining their reasoning, and I'm convinced that they're mostly accurate. Despite that, though, I think those favoring keep have sufficiently argued that enough of the sources remain with significant coverage of her to show notability and justify keeping the article. I think everyone acknowledges this still requires plenty of effort to get into good shape, but the consensus I read below is that the article should be kept and improved to that state. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Mill

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

Delete and redirect to Bengal cat#History, as not independently notable. This is someone whose name and basic background appear in various sources in connection with a single event (successfully getting a new-ish cat breed accepted into a particular major cat fanciers' and breeders' organization), but who now has what appears to be a memorial article (died last year). The content in it was literally just copy-pasted from the Bengal cat article, and I'm unaware of anything encyclopedic that could added to the erstwhile bio that can be found in reliable sources but which isn't something we can and do already cover at the "History" section of the breed article – except more that relates to additional history of that breed (history which we're eliding in an over-focus on Mill; more on that below). While there are a handful of notable animal breeders, they're generally notable for something else (e.g. Harrison Weir as an artist, writer, and organizer; Desmond Morris as a scientist and writer; Anne Rogers Clark as the most accomplished dog-show judge in AKC's history; William Burke Belknap as an industrialist and legislator; Patty Hearst as, well, Patty Hearst). Notability doesn't "rub off" from the breed onto the alleged main establisher of the breed. I don't think there's enough encyclopedic coverage to support a bio article, and we have a WP:NPOV issue, specifically WP:UNDUE, even in how we're using the Mill material at the breed article. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional detail: Mill was neither the first to breed these cats (possibly the first to do so in a controlled way), nor the only breeder of them at the time of their re-establishment as a standardized breed. Rather, she's just credited (in mostly specialized sources of dubious reliability – CatAristocrat.com, Pictures-of-Cats.org, individual breeders' promotional websites and blogs, etc.) as the chief proponent of their acceptance as such. The mainstream RS cited dwell on the breed; they do not focus on Mill. I even found something akin to a human-interest story in relation to the cats and breeders, and Mill only comes up in enough detail to provide a quotation, and as background for the cat story and that of her daughter, another breeder (associated with the Toyger breed).[21] BengalsIllustrated.com (which appears to be well researched, and cites its own sources in detail) suggests that Mill's name "became synonymous" with Bengals, which is essentially the central point I'm raising here, but quite late in the variety's history. That article [22] also goes into some of the other breeders involved, including Bill Engler, who named the breed in 1974 when he first got it registered in any cat fancier organization. Our own article is missing a lot of information on the breed history, and is kind of spinning a pro-Mill yarn. While Mill (née Sugden) had done some experimental breeding as early as 1963, she wasn't involved in breed establishment and "marketing" until 1980. It's not WP's job to help fans, friends, or family of Mill to over-promote her notability, in a separate article or otherwise. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "fans, friends, or family of Mill" I am a wikipedian who seeks to promote newsworthy or noteworthy articles. As an Encyclopedia Wikipedia should seek to included relevant or legendary persons. The fact that other relevant breeders have not been included on Wikipedia should not be the reason to exclude another relevant breeder. Jean Mill is the creator of the modern Bengal breed and she also was the driving force behind getting the breed accepted to the cat registry TICA.

If this article is allowed to remain on Wikipedia it will be developed (as is the case with all Wikipedia articles). Jean Mill is a legendary breeder who created what is one of the most popular cat breeds (Bengal cat) in the world. I humbly ask that this article remain active so that it may be further developed. And if other relevant breeders are absent from Wikipedia perhaps we should look at developing articles for them.

Lubbad85 (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Jean Mill is a legendary breeder who ..." = fandom. See WP:NPOV policy. Encyclopedically important breeders have been included; we have an entire category for them. They have one thing in common: they're all the subjects of a lot of coverage in reliable sources (WP:GNG) as people, not just in connection to a particular breed and its background. "Mill is the creator of the modern Bengal breed and she also was the driving force behind getting the breed accepted to the cat registry TICA": these are good WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE reasons for Mill to be mentioned in the Bengal cat article. They are not at all rationales for a Jean Mill article. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent a bit of time improving references on the Jean Mill page. I also looked up the reference that the OP referred to on Bengals Illustrated regarding Jean Mill and "others" creating the Bengal. The Bengals Illustrated article concluded with "She (Jean Mill) indeed was the originator of the breed." The reason Jean Mill is the originator or creator of the breed is evident in the research. Other breeders like Bill Engler successfully created a hybrid and then ended their backcrossing. Their goals were hybrid creation. Jean Mill had a very different goal. Jean Mill backcrossed hybrids to the F5 generation which is the even tempered modern domestic cat bengal. So where others throughout the history of the breed sought to create a hybrid, Jean Mill sought to create a domestic Bengal cat, and she was the only one who succeeded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubbad85 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that matters, since "established a breed" isn't really grounds for notability, the sources do not focus on Mill but on the breed, and we have nothing to say about Mill that isn't better said in the Bengal cat article. It will simply be duplicate content. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL and WP:BIO1E apply here, and WP:GNG has't been met because the coverage about Mill in particular isn't in-depth (it may be in-depth about the breed, but not about Mill), or it is primary (e.g., breed associations simply regurgitating what they've been told). The problem here is that every single breed that is not an old historical one was established by someone identifiable, so a keep here is an argument to create and keep hundreds or thousands of additional breeder bios, virtually none of which will have anything to say that won't already be in (or should already be in) the article on the breed. It would be different if Mill were notable independently, like being a famous writer or legislator or a bank-robber or whatever – anything that got any coverage, of Mill in particular, in reliable sources. All we have is her being name-dropped in articles that are about the breed (or in one case about her daughter and that person's breed). When the sources tell us that her hame has "become synonymous with" the breed, this means we have one encyclopedic topic, not two. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article has information which cannot be duplicated in the Bengal Cat article, and more sources will be found to develop this notable person's bio. I also noticed today, that the Jean Mill page has had more than 100 hits each of the last two days. I take the view that I and others would have an interest in knowing about the breeders who established the cat breeds. The number of Wikipedia breed creator pages would not number in the "hundreds of thousands" because there are only 42 cat breeds recognized by the Cat Fanciers Association.

I can give an example of a person with a wikipdedia article that in notable for creating a part used on a guitar. Seth Lover developed the humbucker pickup for guitars. Virtually no information about this person exists in this article or elsewhere which cannot be included on the PAF article. I think if given time I could find many similar examples. However, I would not campaign to remove the Seth Lover article.

The article will be developed. To begin the article, I initially reproduced the paragraph and photo from the breed article as a place holder - knowing that I would develop this article. Since that time I have developed the article daily. I think if we allow the article to develop it will become even more worthy of inclusion on wikipedia. Lubbad85 (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I improved the Jean Mill article with additional information and references. I will continue to find more interesting material. One thing I have learned in the research is that Jean Mill has made breeding contributions to two additional cat breeds: the Himalayan cat and the Egyptian Mau. I believe that others will read the article with interest...cats have a very wide following, and Bengals in particular. The Bengal cat article gets 1500-2000 hits a day.Lubbad85 (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That it's possible to make the article longer doesn't do anything to address the central matter, which is that this is a non-notable person (in terms of stand-alone article), a person who is of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE relevance in our content at all only in connection to a single event, the establishment of a cat breed. (having been involved in some other breeds isn't why Mill is mentioned in the cat-fancier press, and doesn't establish notability, for the same reason that Stefanie Schaeffer isn't more notable because the press also mention that she's an amateur golfer. The content of a bio article on Mill is necessarily going to overlap almost completely with coverage of the same person at the breed article, the context in which that person encyclopedically belongs. Using better sources doesn't help establish independent notability if they're not in-depth about the person as a biographical subject rather than in depth about the breed and its history; all that does is solidify the "synonymity" of Mill with a particular cat breed. That the popular cat-breed article is [mis]leading people to a bio page that just regurgitates what they already saw in the breed page isn't evidence of notability. Nor is a very tiny spike in views (100?); the AfD itself caused that. The difference between a Jean Mill article and a Seth Lover article is that in-depth material has been written in RS about Lover, as a person, and his life (much more than we're citing, actually; we have nothing on him at present but some online articles, but paper music magazines and such have been writing about him since before the Internet existed). "I believe that others will read the article with interest" = WP:ITSINTERESTING. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish I understand your points and I of course wholeheartedly disagree. To say that I have simply made the article longer is a very snarky statement. I do hope that Wikipedia editors do not agree with your assertions. However the new research now shows that Jean Mill has been involved in the creation of 3 cat breeds and perhaps a 4th. The personal life and background of this notable person has not been fully explored yet-(more on that later.)

There are many articles on Wikipedia about people who are notable who are for one single event. These people could easily have a mini-bio on the article for their invention.

Johan Vaaler - inventor of the paper clip
László Bíró - inventor of the ballpoint pen
Percy Shaw - inventor of road reflectors
Bette Nesmith Graham - inventor of liquid paper

Many Fictional characters have Wikipedia articles - many fictional characters probably do not need a stand alone page (especially the ones used in advertising).

Jeff Albertson - Fictional Simpsons cartoon character
Michelin Man
Mr. Whipple
GEICO Cavemen
Morris the Cat
Charlie the Tuna

Presently I am researching Jean Mill's background as a wildlife conservationist. Some of Mill's notable accomplishments I have discovered in recent research.

Conservationist
Bengal cat originator
Contributor to the Himalayan cat breed
Contributor to the Egyptian Mau breed
Author
Possible contributor to Toyger breed (researching now)

I ask that the editors not remove the article simply because I have not made the correct arguments. (i.e. interesting, legendary, etc.) My goals are aligned with the goals of Wikipedia. I have spent many hours working to address the concerns expressed in this afd. These efforts take time and I am actively taking direction from this page. The biography will be developed.

I and others will develop the article (not make it longer). Jean Mill now has her name and contributions linked on the Himalayan cat article, Egyptian Mau article and Bengal cat article, and casual mention on the Toyger page because she is the mother of the Toyger creator Judy Sugden. I can imagine that Jean Mill had some involvement in that breed creation, and further research will be conducted. Given time I am 100% positive that the Jean Mill article will be developed further, at this point 14 sources appear on the article. I am searching through pre-internet sources, since the majority of Jean Mill's active life took place beginning in 1948. Lubbad85 (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is all covered at WP:AADD: WP:MERCY, WP:EFFORT, WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:INHERITED, WP:IKNOWIT. WP:BUTITEXISTS, etc. There's only one question before us: do multiple, independent (not breeder-published) reliable sources treat Mill as a biography subject, or just as someone connected to the actually notable topic here, the popular animal breed? It's clearly the latter. Cat-fancier publications are written and published by breeders and are primarily a promotional venue for breeders and their output. They're shaky sources at best, but here even these are not dwelling on Mill but on the breeds. "She's was also a conservationist" = "Stefanie Schaeffer is also an amateur golfer". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you to give time for the bio to be developed. Surely if Morris the cat and Mr. Whipple deserve an article, Jean Mill does.

Johan Vaaler - inventor of the paper clip could be included on the paper clip article, yet Johan has an article. I would ask us to keep the Johan Vaaler article - and to keep Jean Mill article. Please allow time to develop the Jean Mill bio. Biographical information will be added to the page. Cat registries are important for any article about Jean Mill, just as guitar and guitar enthusiast web sites would be important for any article about Seth Lover.

Sources for the Jean Mill article so far

1.Book: Hallépée, Didier (2011). The Egyptian Mau cat. Italy: Carrefour du Net Fondcombe. p. 35. Retrieved 9 March 2019.
2.Book: Robbins, Nancy (1 February 2013). Domestic Cats: Their History, Breeds and Other Facts. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. p. 117. ISBN 9781300695424. Retrieved 9 March 2019.
3.Major Newspaper: Jones, Joyce (20 September 1992). "The Pet Cat That Evokes the Leopard". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 January 2019.
4.Cat Website Wilson, Julia. "Bengal Cat Profile – History, Appearance and Temperament". Cat World. Cat World. Retrieved 10 March 2019.
5.Cat registry website: "Bengal Breed". TICA. The International Cat Association. Retrieved 8 March 2019.
6.Cat oriented website: "Meet The Bengal: The Miniature Leopard of the Cat World". BasePaws.com. Retrieved 19 February 2019.
7.Newspaper: "Leukemia Hereditary Factors Under Probe By Researcher". THE DESERT SUN. Palm Springs. Calif. -. 19 April 1977. Retrieved 8 March 2019.
8.Respected (by the OP) Bengal cat site "BENGAL CAT ORIGINS". Bengals Illustrated. Award Winning Publications. Retrieved 8 March 2019.
9.Newspaper: McEnroe, Collin (28 June 1993). "WILD THING? NO, BENGAL'S A SWEET CAT". Hartford Courant. Retrieved 9 March 2019.
10.Book: Hallépée, Didier (2011). The Egyptian Mau cat. Italy: Carrefour du Net Fondcombe. p. 35. Retrieved 9 March 2019.
11.Cat registry website: "About the Bengal". CFA. The Cat Fanciers' Association, Inc.,. Retrieved 8 March 2019.
12.Major Newspaper: Hamilton, Denise (10 March 1994). "A Little Cat Feat: A Covina woman's efforts at cross-breeding wild and domestic felines are paying off handsomely". Los Angeles Times. p. 2. Retrieved 27 January 2019.
13.Cat Registry Website "Bengal Breed". TICA. The International Cat Association. Retrieved 8 March 2019.
14.Respected Bengal cat site: Bengal cat website: Barrington, Kate. "A Detailed History Of The Bengal Cat Breed". Bengal Cats. Bengal Cats. Retrieved 8 March 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubbad85 (talk • contribs) 14:22, March 11, 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject could conceivably be notable, but the current version of the article is larded with so many non-reliable sources that it is difficult to tell if the notability extends beyond what could be appropriately covered at Bengal cat. See below for a quick review of the sources.

Source review for this version

1. The Egyptian Mau cat: self-published book. Non-RS
2. Domestic Cats: Their History, Breeds and Other Facts: self-published book. Non-RS
3. LAT article. Fine.
4. Facebook post: Apparently a republication of an essay by the article's subject (anyone kknow here it was oiginally published?). Possibly usable as an SPS, but does not contribute to notability.
5. NYT article: Fine.
6. Cat-world: What makes this hobbyist site reliable? Likely non-RS.
7. TICA: Possibly RS.
8. Basepaws: What makes this cat DNA testing company reliable? Likely non-RS.
9. Desert Sun article: Does not even mention the subject.
10. Bengalsilustrated website: what makes this hobbyist publication (a division of "Award Winning Publication") reliable? Possibly non-RS.
11. Hartford Courant: Fine.
12. See #1
13. See #4
14. Cat Fanciers Assoc.: Fine.
15. See #7
16. bengalcats.com: What makes this hobbyist site/online community reliable? Likely non-RS.

Once the article is cleaned-up, it will be easier for me to decide whether keep or merge are the better options. Abecedare (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare Thank you for the helpful evaluation. Will work to improve citations in the coming week. I have ordered several books for references: I will evaluate and update on Tuesday. Lubbad85 (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Well sourced as it is. No compliance with WP:Before. Indeed, U.S. v Sugden is plenty notable by itself. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meet GNG. The review of sources identifies some problems, but still finds a number of reliable independent sources. Canada Hky (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per  SMcCandlish. I'm in a similar boat as Abecedare in that a lot of the sources are really more about the breeds, and you really need significant secondary coverage of the BLP instead for notability, not just sources focusing on a product someone makes. A lot of the above for keeping the article is just WP:1E or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that mostly needs to be dismissed. The sources I'm seeing so far are really just passing mention of Jean Mill and focused more on the breed. WP:INHERITED definitely applies here and doesn't justify a separate page. Some of the personal life stuff related to U.S. v Sugden seems like it's drifting into WP:COATRACK territory too. There's next to no secondary coverage of that, and at best, the case would get its own page, not a BLP. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that my comments include the fairly recent "expansions" as not really affecting GNG at all. I'm seeing people claiming GNG is somehow met that seems more like straw-polls rather than WP:!VOTEs as nothing concrete has ever really been given here or at the article that would truly support a keep decision. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Article is improved with reliable sources to show subject is notable. Lubbad85 (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has greatly expanded since it was nominated. [23] This person is notable for creating multiple species of cats, and has reliable sources giving her coverage for her accomplishments. Dream Focus 04:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As to the Merge/Redirect proposals, I submit that WP:Not paper covers it. The rest of the arguments are mere niffnawing about content. Contnet disputes are a reason to improve the article, not a reason to delete. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mill did not create any cat species at all. She is credited with one breed and helping with two others. That's getting into WP:INHERITED territory for a GNG claim. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Inherited deals with people claiming notability because of who they worked with or are related to. It has nothing to do with claiming someone is notable because of their accomplishments in their field. There is plenty of valid information, referenced to reliable sources, to justify having her own article. Dream Focus 20:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. I believe the article as it currently stands is sufficient for GNG. Davey2116 (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bengal cats as failing GNG's requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources". I have now read all the sources cited in the previously mentioned and current version of the article, and independently searched for sources. And after we look past all the bloat (that is unsourced, sourced to non-RS's, and sourced to primary sources or personal communication with the subject's relatives), what is left is one reliable source contains some biographical information about the subject other than the fact of her breeding the Bengal Cat and two other otherwise reliable sources ([24] and [25]) about the cat breed that mention the subject (as they should!) but contain no significant biographical coverage.

It is particularly instructive to take a look at the United States of American v. Robert V. H. Sugden and Jean S. Sugden section that has recently been added: it is mainly sourced to primary court documents, and yet fails to answer the question "Were Robert and Jean Sugden finally convicted or acquitted?" This demonstrates the risk of trying to write a pseudo-biography of a subject by compiling trivial mentions in googleable sources. Abecedare (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare A mistake was made in the edit notes... the mistake is in admitting that the living daughter was contacted. I see how that admission can make the subsequent research suspect. The information provided by the living relative has led to other research sources. The living relative provided places lived, and marriage information - this will continue to lead to other sources. The good news is that the article is improving daily. In regard to the conclusion of the precedent setting case United States of American v. Robert V. H. Sugden and Jean S. Sugden more research is needed. The case is from the 1950s and it requires a time consuming case search through several courts. The good thing is Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia and the article can be improved perpetually. Thank you for voting. Lubbad85 (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO – "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Andrew D. (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Delete and redirect to Bengal cat#History. The lead says: Mill is best know [sic] as the founder of the modern Bengal cat breed: Mill successfully crossed the wild Asian leopard cat with a domestic cat, and then backcrossed the offspring through five generations to create the domestic Bengal. Mill made contributions in two other cat breeds: the Himalayan and the standardized version of the Egyptian Mau. This comes with a reference to a book whose typography and prose style doesn't suggest any editorial oversight. We later read: There were many other breeders involved in developing the Bengal breed, most notably Pat Warren, William Engle and Willard Centerwall. Jean Mill is considered the originator of the breed because she created a domestic Bengal past the F4 generation, and then tirelessly promoted the new breed. This is sourced to a book by Mill, and to this alone. For Mill to be considered by herself the originator of such and such means nothing. ¶ Normally I'd make this a comment, suggesting a drastic and urgent improvement to the article; however, after all the to-and-fro above about the quality of sources, if this is still the best sourcing possible for the biggest claim about Mill, then an article about her is hopeless. -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC) There's something here, as shown by the NYT article. But still hardly enough for an article. Thus changing from "delete" to "delete and redirect". -- Hoary (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO – " The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Can there be any doubt about WP:ANYBIO? That the person is notable also appears certain. Many of the comments are for improving the article and sources.

Comment In addition I am unsure why this article has now been relisted three times. It appears to go against Wikipedia policy to relist an article over and over, after votes produced a clear consensus.

March 7 Afd

March 14 Afd relisted

March 21 Afd relisted 6 votes keep 2 votes redirect

March 28 Afd relisted by Randykitty

~~Lubbad85 (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck duplicate vote by Lubbad85. Bradv🍁 15:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lubbad85, the first paragraph of what you write immediately above seem merely to repeat what you wrote earlier. Now, if she has indeed made a widely recognized contribution, then the article can cite this recognition. Right now, it does not. As I've pointed out, it says that Mill is considered the originator of a breed (her major claim to notability) because Mill herself says she was. This isn't good enough. Wikipedia requires reliable, disinterested sources. ¶ You write of votes. An AfD is not a tally of votes. Whoever closes this will have the task of evaluating the arguments pro and con. -- Hoary (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary The research has shown that Mill created the modern Bengal cat. The other contributors only succeeded in F1 creating hybrids (completely different). The research and the record show that Mill created the domestic Bengal cat. It seems very clear that she passes WP:ANYBIO – " The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. In addition Mill has also made a widely recognized contribution to two other breeds of cats. If you take issue with a source that is easy to address, But your vote is for delete. There are other sources which show this. New York Times Regarding the afd being relisted yet again, Wikipedia asks for consensus: Definition of consensus: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned The consensus was keep it seems disingenuous to keep relisting and voting hoping for a different outcome. Lubbad85 (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With the NYT article, this is starting to look interesting. However, the article Jean Mill still cites material by Hallépée (who rather obviously doubles as the publisher of his book); a book published by CreateSpace (which will publish, or anyway print out, bind and send out, whatever you pay it to); and, as the sole reference for a major claim made for Mill, a book by Mill. Please strip this article of these and any other feeble sources. -- Hoary (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space. This looks like it could be a notable subject, but the article is poorly written and there is contention about the sourcing, particularly sourcing that's more about cats than the subject. It is clearly and obviously not ready for main space yet, so move it to draft for improvement and review by a more neutral third party. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting

This is the third relist. Evidently someone doesn't want to close because they don't like the clear result, which is KEEP.
You are beating a dead horse. Get over it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSENSUS is being ignored for some reason. "Editors who choose to re-list an article's deletion discussion should make sure that they are doing so when consensus is not clear".
Per WP:RELIST: "Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, 'in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation (in addition to the {{Relist}} template) on why they did not consider the debate sufficient." Lubbad85 (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus, there are spirited disputes making good points. Consensus doesn't equate to majority vote. As an administrator myself, I would be hesitant to close this, because the closing admin must judge the arguments, not simply the vote counts. Also there are no deadlines on Wikipedia. There is no reason to appear that you are in a hurry. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It may be possible to write a worthwhile article about this person that isn’t cloying fancruft, but this clearly isn’t the foundation that could be built on. Moving it to draftspace would not help that. Qwirkle (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The question is where has Qwirkle been the last three weeks, and why now? But latecomers ...

Forgive me, I have fallen into the methodology of the WP:AFD crew See, e.g., Supercentenarians and related articles. If you can't win at the ballot box, disqualify the voters!

So I'll just WP:AGF and Qwirkle can ... live with that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Obviously, User:Qwirkle has been somewhere at the periphery of the 7&6=thirteen-centric universe. Do you think every single wikiteur hangs about here? (I will let your obvious lie about assuming good faith speak for itself.) Qwirkle (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It could well be that more people have noticed the existence of this discussion because it was brought up at WP:ANI. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bengal cat#History. The Los Angeles Times and New York Times articles already support a short summary of Mill's contributions to Bengal cat breeding in the main article on Bengal cats. That article also provides needed context, as WP:NOPAGE suggests, for explaining the specifics of breeding one generation or type rather than another, so the section can avoid excessive detail and avoid the temptation of padding out a paragraph in order to look more like an article. Redirecting to a well-sourced, tightly-written section in that article provides a much better service to our readers, who are here to read encyclopedia entries. Bakazaka (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Qwirkle I apologize. I was wrong, and unaware of the ANI, and that plausibly 'let up the sky'. Fireworks beget attention. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read the Los Angeles Times source, because they seem not to want to abide by perfectly reasonable standards of privacy mandated by the European Union, or the New York Times source, because I don't have a subscription, but I must say that the rest of the sources look very weak. In particular the books cited are either written by Mill herself or are self published via CreateSpace and Kindle Direct Publishing. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bengal cat#History. That article already covers this person contributions and serves better than this article does. -DJSasso (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bengal cat#History, which covers her proportionally to her contribution to the field. SportingFlyer T·C 18:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (saw this at ANI). The section at Bengal cat#History would seem adequate to cover her contributions; no reason why that couldn't be expanded a little, but I'm not getting the impression that there is enough topical coverage for a standalone article. As pointed out by Abecedare and others, the court case sources do not help in this regard because they are primary documents (lacking secondary uptake). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article's subject meets the GNG. Although the article needs a lot of work, AfD is not cleanup. Miniapolis 21:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bengal cat#History insufficient notability and too much cruft. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
keep this is not how our inclusion guidelines work. We have entire articles about her in significant newspapers. She meets WP:N easily. An editorial decision to redirect isn't crazy, but A) there is plenty here to write about IMO and B) such a discussion does not belong at AfD, it belongs on the article talk page. She meets our inclusion guidelines. Hobit (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This subject meets GNG although I think the article could be pared down some and more of the flowery language ("legacy"?) removed. But I think it meets our standard of notability and I don't like that it was relisted again when there is clearly a consensus to keep, perhaps to redirect or no consensus but not to delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets WP:GNG with many articles about her and her work. As mentioned, she also gets by on WP:ANYBIO #2 with adding a new breed. The article also needs some improvement, like restructuring. StrayBolt (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that she meets GNG. gnu 57 13:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I won’t bother to read the mêlée going on above, but what it comes down to is the woman clearly had significant coverage from reliable sources, not just routine coverage. Trillfendi (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep This person passes WP:ANYBIO the person made a widely recognized contribution in her field. The major sources are adequate. Gristleking (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)~~ Sockpuppet of a previous voter. —DoRD (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to draft-spacing or user-spacing it, as the nominator. Someone suggested that above. PS: The reason this was relisted is that this is not a vote. A bunch of reflexive "keep" comments are not a consensus, when the sourcing is this weak. There aren't multiple in-depth articles about this subject in independent RS. There are multiple in-depth articles about the cat breed which mention her, and about cat breeding and breeders (including one related to her) which mention her, in such sources; and there are in-depth articles about her in non-independent sources (her cat registry, and cat fancier publications written by breeders as promotional vehicles; not usable for notability purposes), and in WP:UGC blogs (not usable at all). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 )01:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. See in particular here. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying the ANI post was canvassing? Given how badly the OP did there, I'd expect people to be biased against the article rather than for it. Certainly the ANI post brought in more !voters, but I'm not understanding how it could count as canvassing. Or are you saying something else? Hobit (talk) 10:12, 2 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. Putting aside any claim about paid editing and User:PNW Raven, the concern is about her meeting GNG is answered multiple times. The nominator even says during the nomination that the article "appears to be a puff piece" and "Just thought I'd put it out there" which suggests that they didn't do any independent searching themselves before nominating. The article is in dire need of cleanup and some restructuring, but AFD isn't the place for that. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 05:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Mair

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

This appears to be a puff piece about a political staffer that would be better suited to her LinkedIn profile. Happy to be proven wrong if this person is in fact notable. Just thought I'd put it out there. Cheers Locochoko (talk) 06:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am addressing the claim that "a major contributor appears to have a close connection with its subject." I am not a major contributor to the article, and I do not have a "close" connection to the subject. I have a casual acquaintance with Liz Mair through another person I know who lives on the opposite coast from me (I live on the west coast) and who I seldom see. I was contacted by this person because she knew I edited on Wikipedia. I was asked if I could assist with formatting the page and adding additional neutral and "fact-based" content, which I did NOT write. I agreed as this gave me an opportunity to learn some additional technical editing skills. I also openly sought technical advice from Wiki editors on how to get a photo of the subject approved and passed on that information. From the beginning, I stated to Wikipedia, openly and multiple times, including on the Talk Page, that I have absolutely NO participation whatsoever in writing or formulating the editorial content. I agreed to only help format the page and made it clear I would not contribute to the editorial content due to conflict of interest issues. I have no affiliation with any other person or organization mentioned in this article, other I am a Democrat. Liz Mair is a Republican.PNW Raven (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to add that Liz Mair is a notable Republican strategist/consultant and pundit (and not a "political staffer" being as she owns and heads her own consulting firm), who writes extensive political articles in a variety of newspapers such as The Daily Beast, US News, The New York Times, among others, and regularly appears on various national TV news channels giving political analysis and opinions. She just became more "notable" as I heard in yesterday's national news media that she is listed as a defendant Rep. Devin Nunes' $250 million dollar law suit for defamation of character (by being mean in a tweet or something to that effect).PNW Raven (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PNW Raven! Fair enough re the COI, but I’m still not sure this person really meets Wikipedia’s rather stringent notability standards at this point. She may well do in the future, but the content (which you did not write) still reads as self promotion. Anyway, I’ll leave it to other people to see what they reckon. Cheers! Locochoko (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! We'll see what others have to say about it. And correct, I did not write the text. It was emailed to me in its entirety, and I replaced the older content with the new text by copy and paste, which I then formatted into sections and added internal links. PNW Raven (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick google search produces quite a few hits, she is quoted for being an anti-Trump Republican in a number of spots (Wash Examiner, OreganLive) and is now the subject of a lolsuit brought by Devin Nunes for being annoying on twitter: TheHill. Its highly likely that she is notable enough for inclusion, but the state of her article is pretty poor and not made better by the likely WP:UPE from PNW Raven. SWL36 (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have recommended that the article content needs to be significantly improved according to the suggestions that have been stated, and advised that the author(s) view similar-type pages as a guide. I believe it will be revised in the near future. I have no further involvement with this article. As I have stated, repeatedly, the work I did (formatting the page) was as a favor to someone I know. The article had been rated a stub-class, and the authors had attempted to improve it.PNW Raven (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seriously in need of editing, but doesn't seem to violate any policy and sources (although clunky and poorly arranged) pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 2:58 pm, Today (UTC−5)
I think this could use some more input, and not just for concerns around COI. There are really only two real sources with coverage on the page — everything else just proves she wrote for an organization — and even then, only one is really about her. There are plenty of mentions out there, but everything is either a: 1) process stories from 2015/2016; 2) she wrote a bad tweet; or 3) "Devin Nunes is suing a funny twitter account! Oh, and also this person". None of that seems like WP:SIGCOV to me. I think it's certainly possible that she is notable through the combination of all three of those, but I'm not convinced either way. I had intended to relist this, as regardless I don't think we've reached a convincing consensus yet, but at this point I think I'm too invested in that idea/my own equivocation so I'm leaving it as a comment. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are enough to pass WP:GNG and AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The actual subject meets WP:GNG with: a Washington Examiner article, an Oregon Live (The Oregonian) article, and an MSNBC interview (video here) all constituting significant coverage by reliable sources (on both sides of the political spectrum). Also 7 or so sentences on her (maybe significant coverage?) in this Fox News article. Many of the other sources are passing mentions or not reliable sources, but these are sufficient. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. The article is eligible for G4 ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Javaid Anwar

AfDs for this article:

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

Just recently deleted. Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does this not qualify for G4? I'm not sure how the page looked prior to deletion from the previous AFD. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 05:22, 4 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) 17:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shyon Keoppel

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

Promotional. No substantial, in-depth, independent WP:RS to establish GNG. Additionally, user has engaged in what appears to be a pattern of Promotional, and like COI/Paid editing on non-notable pages. Theredproject (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I earlier took the easy way out with this article by marking it reviewed but adding a notability tag, which goes to say that I can't tell in this case. It's definitely on the border, but it's unclear to me on which side. I will therefore refrain from jumping either way here. But it is worth noting that the editor very clearly is doing undeclared paid promotional work with these pieces, and that some general reaction may be due on that account. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.

Thank you Elimidae for the opportunity the article Shyon Keoppel has more than five secondary sources citations and Wikipedia requires at least three secondary sources to write an article. Shyon keoppel is notable and I'm not connected to him. I don't even live in the United States, so stop assuming (Ziggy 2milli (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

User:CAPTAIN RAJU|CAPTAIN RAJU]]^(T) 15:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates WP:PROMO. Sources are not strong enough to establish WP:GNG and looks like it was written for marketing/PR purposes. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article has been moved to Draft:Shyon Keoppel by its creator. ansh 666 20:51, 1 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) 17:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NuBits

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

Non-notable entry, can't seem to find any additional sources that establish sufficient notability per WP:GNG -Liance^{talk/contribs} 13:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searches only returned routine coverage of its price. Fails WP:GNG. --Hiwilms (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 11:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands - sourced only to crypto blogs - David Gerard (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

W. W. Burnside

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

Mayor of a Town of less than 1,500 who fails WP:NPOL. Most of the sources are family obituaries or basic government records and don't support WP:GNG GPL93 (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. A quick browse finds coverage of the subject's son in The Story of Louisiana – Frank Burnside was a mayor and aviator too. The worst case would be merger into Newellton, Louisiana where the Burnsides seem to have been an influential family. Andrew D. (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NPOL, laughable to assume one is notable for being mayor of a town of 1000 people. Being influential there doesn't go very far... I do not care about his son when talking about notability of the father. Reywas92^Talk 06:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We truly have a glut of articles on non-notable Louisianans.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 2 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 as G11 advertisement ... discospinster _talk 13:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Udyog Sampark Kendra

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

Lack of any proof of notability, fails WP:GNG, et al. DrumSalad (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bettina Walter

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

Page about a German film producer that fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Subject also claims to have won some award but no references to support. The .de version of the page also lacks sources.

Doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS Lapablo (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. 13:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 13:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:01, 4 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) 16:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Khurgan Badmaev

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

Removed prod. While an interesting story, simply does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to have gotten some recent coverage due to turning a 100. Doesn't pass NSOLDIER, and doesn't seem to be a notable enough spy. Did find some coverage pre-dating his 100th - e.g. this from 2004 - but I don't think this gets over GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KENZA

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

Doesnt seem to pass WP:MUSICBIO, and no mention in Reliable sources. Daiyusha (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her stage name makes it difficult to find sources as it's a common term. Her real name does not return any results. The sources present in the article are not enough to support WP:GNG as most are brief mentions. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost certainly WP:UPE. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was accepted for publication via AFC, but the reviewer should have checked more closely whether any of the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO are met. They don't appear to be met, not even the one about coverage in #1. If the most significant work is a mixtape, that's a pretty good sign that the subject isn't notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as a WP:COPYVIO. This is likely to be an unpopular result, but as RoySmith and Britishfinance point out in the discussion, copyright expertise is required to assess the copyright status of this article, and I am in the unfortunate position of being an admin with the requisite expertise. While it is true that copyright can not inhere to lists of facts, this article is not a list of facts. It is a list of speculations, based on factors chosen by its authors. While these factors may have been chosen with an intent to make the most accurate projections, there is still substantial personal creativity involved in deciding which factors to include and which of the immeasurable set of all possible factors to exclude. This deletion is without prejudice to the creation of an article about this list of projections, which could in context make a fair use discussion replicating a sampling of these factors, and broadly relaying their conclusions. However, replication of the numbers arrived at by the author here, no matter how formatted, lifts this information out of the body of work that Wikipedia is able to publish under its license. As a final thought, the use of this or any material in Wikipedia to further any third-party agenda is irrelevant, and properly rejected as a basis for deletion. bd2412 T 20:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by future population (United Nations, medium fertility variant)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of countries by future population (United Nations, medium fertility variant)

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

Why the page should be deleted Mystery42 (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page is just a copypaste of some UN report. There are no other references, the "references" are only footnotes from the report and other footnotes by some Wikipedia people. Everyone could just get this directly from the UN. If it is relevant to some other article, they need not reference this article, but they can simply refer to the UN report. In my eyes, the technical problem is that this article is irrelevant and this is a reason to delete this article.

The bigger problem is: Context is missing. There is no discussion of the methods, no criticism, not even the context of why this table was created and what purpose it is supposed to be used for. This data necessarily is highly speculative. Noone can estimate the world's population without dubious theoretical assumptions. This is obvious for any academic, but it might not be obvious to children or people with bad access to education. Of course, Wikipedia should educate these groups, but this context-free stub is not going to educate them. It is rather going to make them believe: "This is on Wikipedia, even UN, there is no criticism section, so this is probably objectively true."

This becomes clear when we see that the shooter of Christchurch refers to this article in his manifesto (which will lead many people to this page). Of course, the shooter's reference is not a reason to remove this article. But it is obvious that people like him just take this table to be objective truth, just like the actual population numbers from last year.

The worse problem is: It just appears as if this was a propaganda page by people with the same ideology as the shooter. Just look at the phrase in brackets: "(which is the *recommended* one)". This has not been written by someone who wanted to inform other people, but rather by someone who desperately wanted to persuade other people.

So – as there are clear technical reasons to delete this page –, I suggest doing so. (In that case, better put a note in there, linking to this discussion, so that people do not think Wikipedia is censoring facts because they support an unpopular opinion. This page URL will be called by many people and they would then wonder. It should be clear that this page simply does not make sense for technical reasons.)

The technical reason is: This page is unnecessary and it makes figures look uncontroversial which are not uncontroversial. An alternative would be to extend this page, but I do not see a reason for that at the moment. Mystery42 (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - being mentioned in the Christchurch manifesto is not a reason to delete something. The article has existed since 2011, and you have to do something better than this nomination. When stating objective data projected by a neutral source becomes 'propaganda', I fear for the fate of the modern man. Or whatever. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a WP:COPYVIO. The terms of use state it is for "personal, non-commercial use, without any right to resell or redistribute them". Clarityfiend (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that is not a valid deletion argument. By your logic, EVERY article is copyvio because they all (or nearly all) use copyrighted works as sources. We are certainly allowed to use data to write articles. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a functional copy-and-paste of the report. The logic isn't wrong. We could use this as a reference, but we can't copy the table per the U.N. copyright/terms of use. SportingFlyer T·C 04:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article existed since 2011 and has a lot of language versions. We also have other similar article List of countries by population (United Nations). Dawid2009 (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I agree this is a copyvio. It appears clear from the U.N. website the United Nations does not allow this data to be redistributed (which we are clearly doing) without permission. SportingFlyer T·C 04:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be G12'd. SportingFlyer T·C 02:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as WP:COPYVIO appears to be a potential issue. What should really happen is a deeper discussion of UN's future population reports, with the nominated article plus List of countries by future population (United Nations, constant fertility variant), List of countries by future population (United Nations, constant mortality variant), and etc included as sources. Burroughs'10 (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix, and per Dawid2009. We can't let monstrous acts influence encyclopedic content. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article as this subject is notable and fix copyvio issues. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia's role is to summarize content from other sources, and usually not to reproduce the entire content in full. However, there are many cases in which we need an entire video, table, or quote if we can keep it. The issue here is there are all these other articles: List of countries by future population (United Nations, constant fertility variant) List of countries by future population (United Nations, constant mortality variant) List of countries by future population (United Nations, instant replacement variant) List of countries by future population (United Nations, high fertility variant) List of countries by future population (United Nations, low fertility variant) List of countries by future population (United Nations, medium fertility variant) List of countries by past and current population (United Nations, estimates) and nobody knows what any of this means without reading the report. I suppose we could go ahead and copypaste the whole text of the report to explain it, but then we really would be committing a copyright violation (which the data per se does not do). But never mind that -- the end point is we have the entire UN crystal ball put in the voice of Wikipedia. Is that what we need? Doesn't the UN host their own report? The fix is to take all this data, condense it down to maybe one table, paraphrase some context, link in some commentary, make the article about the report or World Population Prospects in general, and give readers something they can take home a message from rather than a poor copy of a primary document. This is not a pure delete vote (I want that article) and it is not a pure keep vote (most of these articles need to get redirected to something - actually World Population Prospects is an excellent target). I see no need for administrative deletion - no content here has to be hidden, because the U.S. does not (yet, I hope not ever) suffer from database copyright. Also, I would like to retain the data because readers can take ratios of the projections over current population and make up SVG maps using this data, which are easier to swallow in moderate doses. The data tables could then be kept at the map image description pages. Wnt (talk) 11:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's clear this is still a copyvio. The Excel spreadsheet this article is completely based on has a copyright with an "all rights reserved" on it, which includes redistribution or creating derivative works. The database rights isn't on point, because you imply databases that aren't covered by that law do not fall under copyright, which is incorrect (if I have this right that actually creates a separate right if you have a database of facts you have worked to compile, and facts cannot be copyrighted.) Further, the data are estimates and not facts so can be copyrighted as they are the work of the U.N. SportingFlyer T·C 16:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument about estimates almost makes sense, but not when there is no originality involved. A set of predictions made by a scientific procedure are meant to be reproducible by anyone who does the same thing. We have many such tables - electronegativity, Mohs hardness scale, oxidation state etc. The number does not have to be a direct observation - a 'fact' you might say -- it can be highly processed by algorithms or clever chemists into some index; nonetheless, if the author didn't have the option to just go into the table and change some numbers for the heck of it, it cannot be a creative work. Wnt (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, databases are copyrightable in the U.S. - see "compilation" here [26]. Even if the facts in the databases aren't copyrightable (assuming the data are "facts" the database itself can be. And in any case, "unoriginal" databases have been held in the past as breach of contracts where distribution occurs through a license even though the work itself isn't available for copyright. In this case, it's crystal clear the UN license is incompatible with the Wikipedia license. See Wikipedia:Non-free_content. SportingFlyer T·C 21:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia certainly cannot breach a contract it didn't make. Your argument about "compilation" relies on some indication that the authors compiled and selected their original population data from many different sources in a unique and idiosyncratic way rather than using a few public data sets to base their projections; admittedly I haven't found out enough about the set to disprove that, but I'm not convinced it's true either. Wnt (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But it can breach a license, which is, in essence if not in fact, a contract to use the data. An argument saying the UN copyright/license is invalid because of a legal theory which may or may not be correct isn't an argument to keep per our non-free content terms. SportingFlyer T·C 23:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming copyrights on uncopyrightable material based on "a legal theory which may or may not be correct" is called copyfraud. Every day people are duped into paying royalties on public domain content, and there's no law against it. Even so, I don't see the UN here complaining - I see you propounding what sounds like an overwrought extension of copyrights even beyond their usual miserable nature. Wnt (talk) 0f7:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but again, you're assuming a court would assume the information provided in the table is not creative. Per Wikipedia:Copyright in lists, this is an instance where the UN is not reporting facts, but rather collecting data from a number of different sources and providing their own estimate. It could be considered roughly equivalent to the CCC Information Services case mentioned in that link. It really boils down to whether these have been created by "repeatable calculation" or by "value judgments," and a reading of the methodology here, especially page 5 [27], means that we're much closer to "value judgments" than "repeatable calculations." SportingFlyer T·C 21:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Downloading the UN data and uploading here is against their terms of use but my thoughts are that it is not a breach of copyright because the information has been sufficiently transformed. I think WP policy is to respect copyright but not terms of use. I'm not sure because I personally try to respect both. Database rights? No idea. I'm not at all sure how useful this table is (would it not be better to discuss the area of interest in an article and link to the UN?) but I don't think that is an sufficient reason for deletion. Thincat (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't "transformed" the work at all, simply reformatted it. SportingFlyer T·C 16:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, maybe you are right. The spreadsheet I looked at (with the same figures) was in quite a different format but perhaps I looked at the wrong one. Another consideration: these figures are not merely counted numbers, i.e. not "facts". Rather, they have been produced using a (mathematical) process that is arguably "creative" to a lawyer. And perhaps a valid copyright claim can be made on that basis. I don't know. Thincat (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A number can be a valid scientific observation or estimate, or it can be a creative work of the human imagination, but it can't be both. Creativity implied someone had an option to change those numbers to tell some other story. Wnt (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion should focus on notability, and on whether these data are copyrightable. Neither is particularly clear from the discussion above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:RAWDATA. I'm also unable to figure out exactly what source was used. There's an external link that gets you to https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/Population/, where you can find a large number of spreadsheets. I can't tell which of those was used to generate this table, so fails WP:V in its current state. I don't honestly know if this is a WP:CV, but it certainly violates the UN's Terms Of Use, which says, The United Nations grants permission to Users to visit the Site and to download and copy the information, documents and materials (collectively, “Materials”) from the Site for the User’s personal, non-commercial use, without any right to resell or redistribute them or to compile or create derivative works. This clearly violates that. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found the source spreadsheet, which the first one on the "Probabilistic Projections" tab ([28]). I think if the article survives AfD, then the sourcing and additional methodoligy criteria of how this data was constructed should be added to the WP article so that a reader can see exactly where it came from, and what it represents (e.g. assumptions etc.). Otherwise it is useless to a reader, and just junk. Britishfinance (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand the COPYVIO concerns, however, I feel that we need some specialist input here; particularly given that there are many WP articles that are effectively "data tables" of other global NGO-type organistations (e.g. our GDP-GNI data tables, and many many more). Should we ping a WP copyvio specialist to this AfD (e.g Dianna)? If we can sort the copyvio one way or another (e.g. is it a WP:G12 or not), then now that I have found the source, we could repair this article. It is very intersting and informative imho. Britishfinance (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert on copyright / licensing; I certainly agree that we should have input from somebody who is. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as the question here really isn't whether it's notable but whether the methodology used by the U.N. is "creative" or whether these are being presented as facts. If there's "creativity" in the methodology (and I think there is), especially given the U.N. license then it's a copyvio. SportingFlyer T·C 00:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Per above comments (and additional comment below re WP:NFC); could we get some expert opinion on the COPYVIO issues raised in this AfD, before we try to address the other issues on sourcing etc. thanks Britishfinance (talk)

Comment This deletion request is without obvious merit. The arguments for deletion require too much speculation to succeed. Noct urnalnow (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: COPYVIO shouldn't be a concern here as lists or data sets don't apply, only prose, per WP:NFC. And if citing Wikipedia in a shooting manifesto is grounds for deletion then I think we'd see an increase in shootings. (For the humour-deficient, I'm saying the argument that we should delete it because it was cited in the Christchurch shooter's manifesto is rubbish.) SITH (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like some discussion on how this passes the NFC and whether data that is presumably a unique data set can be creative or not. What is the copyright status of the original UN report?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: At first it appeared to me that it was a simple list of raw data, which would not contain any creative content, and thus not be copyrightable. However (after being pinged to offer an opinion and thinking about it for a few hours) I don't think that's actually the case. Countries are grouped as "medium-fertility" if their children per woman is declining but is still somewhere above 2.1 per woman. That seems straightforward enough, but this page, which describes the process of obtaining the final data, says that a number of different variables unique to each country such as mortality, AIDS status, and migration are taken into account to obtain the final result. Therefore my opinion is that the data in this series of UN tables contain enough creative expression to qualify for copyright protection and should not be republished here in their entirety. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ~~no consensus~~. Seems like this article has new sources after the last deletion discussion and the main point of contention appears to be whether the rather bare-bones sources nevertheless satisfy GNG requirements even after throwing out a bunch of self-published ones. Seems like this is pretty evenly split between folks who think the sources scrape by and these who don't, with no side having a killer argument. Perhaps the delete case is a bit stronger, but not in my assessment enough to warrant a "delete" close. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the closure to delete per discussion on my talk page. It seems like the sources discussed here were already (implicitly) assessed in the preceding AfD and judged insufficient, and comments from previous participants indicated that they still consider them inadequate. Thus, it now is a consensus for deletion. There is no consensus on whether an article on Hinely might be notable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dagger (zine)

AfDs for this article:

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

This was just deleted a couple of days ago. The creator opened a case at DRV, which was on its way to an endorse outcome when the DRV was withdrawn and the article re-created in mainspace. This isn't quite close enough to the deleted version for WP:G4, and I'm involved at this point, so bringing it here for a broader look and a more authoritative conclusion. Given that we seem to have an editor intent on recreating this, I suggest the title be salted after deletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Dagger now has citations from dozens of reviews in reputable magazines. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment RoySmith Isn't this a failure of WP:SK Criteria 1 (fails to advance any argument for deletion)? I feel like the only basis of this AfD is "an article was deleted and was recreated but because it is not G4 worthy it is going to AfD." Was WP:BEFORE done to show that the new article still does not establish notability (I will assume it was under WP:AGF but I still have to ask as it's not said at all)? Currently I have no opinion on this right now (Randykitty had very persuasive arguments on the 1st AfD to be honest) and will check back when I have time to for all these sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 Again, I hope my comment was not offensive, because that was never my intention. I was just surprised to see a nomination by an admin that has no analysis of anything in a giant article in AfD. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My own examination (as I explained in the DRV) of the two versions was that the sources were very similar. At the DRV, I asked NorthPark1417 what had changed between the version that was deleted and the new draft they were proposing. The best they could offer was, The article has been improved, The article is expanded roughly three times in length, and The article is well sourced. It has dozens of reviews in reputable magazines, but they did not point out any specific sources which were new. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, that makes a sense now. My bad I haven't checked DRV thinking it wasn't so important since it was withdrawn. Thanks for the response and will vote this week when I am able for a thorough reading of the article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Thanks to Jovanmilic97 for pinging me. I was unaware that a DRV had been opened and that this article was re-created 2 days after the previous AfD, when NorthPark1417 apparently was unable to find all these in-depth sources. Despite the reference bombing, I see no reason to change my !vote from the previous AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's some rationale for passing WP:GNG.

"Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." - It has multiple reviews in Punk Planet, Maximumrocknroll, Factsheet Five, Alternative Press Review, Option, Razorcake and Zine Guide.

The journal is historically important in its subject area. - it soon will be the last music zine still in print.

Is considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area. - noted by Pitchfork, on the topic of music zines as "one of the best." - NorthPark1417 (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful if you could point out specifically which sources are new since the previous AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"While not a local magazine, Dagger suffers when taken out of Portland, it seems to require vast knowledge of the densely populated indie music scene. Lukcily, Tim has that knowledge, and he likes to share. Indie pop eats itself in an implosion of rare factoids and obscure interviews." - Punk Planet #63.
"Music zine that features a Bitch Magnet interview as a centerfold. More interesting with my bias were Tim's charry zine reviews, managing to put a fresh light on the same old stuff. He also does a batch of records and singles and prints some strange fictional stuff too." - Factsheet Five #40
Dagger was, is and always shall be Tim Hinely. First published in the backwoods of a New Jersey ranch house in 1987 and still being published in print to this day, he's the congenial guy next door who looks like he should be coaching a Cinnaminson, NJ Little League team or barbecueing on the 4th of July while retelling Jackie Martling jokes. Instead, Tim channels his Protestant work ethic, informed as it is by a fevered music hound's tilt, into lionizing underground rock no-counts working the crease. (He probably coaches and barbecues too.) The early years of Dagger during the late 80's and early 90's found Tim interviewing the Antiseen, hitching a ride in the Surgery can and yucking it up with "A-listers of the highest order, like Tesco and Mark Eitzel and the beloved yet exasperating chosen ones in bands named Killdozer, Christmas, Honor Role, Dinosaur, Urge Overkill, the Laughing Hyenas, et al. What makes that worthy for remembrance and distinguishes Tim's zine is his congenial lover's tone and inexplicable earnestness, like it's as natural to be passing Suckdog's Drugs Are Nce down the church pew as it is the collection plate. Should fellow parishioners look agape in his direction, he'd simply declare convincingly, "There's no problem ma'am. It's a great record!" Tim and friends post daily sermons to this day at the Dagger website and he issued Dagger #46 - on paper, mind you - in November 2013." - Dynamite Hemorrhage #1
A music zine that is mostly wall-to-wall reviews, zines, live shows, records, singles, tapes, they're all here (CDs being conspicuous by their absence). That's cool, Tim writes well and slams things that need slamming while keeping an open mind about the rest and knowing his stuff when it comes to punk and other strange new music. Also includes stuff on Surgery, the Bastards, and a couple of other bands. - Factsheet Five #37
Dagger is a 28-page punk zine of the angry, yet sensitive, young man variety. This, the "Gone to California" issue, inlcudes an interview with punk folkstress Lios Maffeo, and some (more amusing than average) zine, show and record reviews. $3 will get you a copy. - Alternative Press Review
The Portland-based music zine features interviews with Jesse Malin of D-Generation, Britta Phillips of Luna and others. It has multiple review sections, each by a different person with a different style, but all showing a deep knowledge of punk/indie music/ Despite its nice newsprint format, through, the layout is very bland. - Punk Planet #30
An ambitious, black-and-white newsprint zine from Portland. Dagger is abundant with interviews (Thurston Moore, Jad Far, etc.) and reviews. There's a standout piece on good riffs in rock music. In general, Dagger doesn't cover much territory. Overall, a generic zzzzzzine. - Punk Planet #74
Lessee.... interviews with Small Factory, Envelope, and Dixie Pig Dick Executioners, and a thing about Tim Buckley. A pretty neat zine that has way long reviews, including show reviews! Show reviews, goddmmit! Crazy. Maximumrocknroll #138
A thick compilation of reviews and interviews with the likes of Tad, Tar, Texas Instruments and Antiseen. The green cover doesn't make me horny and the content doesn't get me excited either. I'm not saying it's bad (it's obvious that Tim puts time and thought into it), but nonetheless it just ain't punk (and I am). Maximumrocknroll #80
"If I lived in Portland, Oregon, I'd probably pick this up when I saw it. It is free, after all. My biggest pet peeve is that, like The Big Takeover, the reviews are organized by reviewer. I read review sections pretty thoroughly, looking for a band I've heard about and want to know more, or to see what people think about albums I really like or hate. By sectioning it by reviewer, I never make it all that far into it before just giving up." - Razorcake #16
"If you like interviews, this is your zine. Included for your enjoyment are conversations with All Girl Summer Fun Band, Redd Kross, The Deathray Davies, Catherine Irwin and others. A heaping helping of music reviews follows all these. Eat up!" - Punk Planet #59
"Not too many music-qua-music 'zines have swum before us this season, but the redoubtable Dagger has hit issue 41 with everything in order. Tim Hinely's been doing this ’zine since back in the Forced Exposure days, and he still puts together a great pile of reviews and features that rock rock rock." - Arthur #32
"As far as I can tell, the only 'zines in this collection that still exist are Metal Core and Dagger. Tim Hinely began publising his most recent issue #43, in Winter 2010." - Public Collectors
"On the indie pop front, Sky Blue Records has a great comp CD "Popular World." The label of indie mogul Tim of the great Dagger zine, this includes many..." - Maximumrocknroll #214
Tim – "When my sister and I were young, I'm a year older so I would have been 8 and her 7, we would make little magazines together. I think that was the beginning (though they were not about music). I began reading lots of zines (mostly music zines) in my early 20s and then a pal in South Jersey published his first zine, Big Fuckin' Deal so that spurred me into action. The first Dagger came out in March of 1987. Oh man…..all of the great people I have met in doing the zines as well as swapping zines with people, chatting, corresponding, etc. It gave me a reason to approach some of my favorite bands/musicians and ask 'em to do interviews. Man. Probably a zinester because as I've said, I've met so many cool people and it has given me an identity in a way. I do most of my zine stuff (reviews, etc.) either early in the morning or at night when she is either in bed or upstairs with my wife watching TV. I'm usually able to get stuff done. Sometimes." - QRD #73
"Seriously, how hard is it to push the "publish" button on a website, compared to the work that’s involved with laying out an array of 8 ½” x 10? pages, arranging ads, shipping the thing off to a printer and then going about the distribution and mailing of a 'zine? I speak here as one who spent over a decade, starting in the late '70s, publishing a string of my own 'zines...) Tim Hinely, straight outta Portland, has been publishing the mighty Dagger zine for ages now, and with his latest issue, Winter 2010-11, he’s up to number 43. The latest issue features a slew of in-depth Q&As: Bob Fay (Sebadoh, Cardinal, etc.), weighing in on his career, on the Boston music scene, and more." Blurt
"In the 1980s and 90s, photocopied, hand-stapled music magazines-- known best as "fanzines"-- seemed as ubiquitous as blogs are today[,] many of which didn't last past issue #1[.] One of the best, Tim Hinely's Dagger, is still going strong." - Pitchfork

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I understand the points made to delete, and they are solid, but I think that if NorthPark1417 could give us a list of what has been updated and why those new updates increase notability, I am in favor. If NorthPark1417 cannot or does not, I will change my status to delete.

Comment - See the comment above for passing WP:GNG ("Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.) - NorthPark1417 (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems to me that almost all of the above long list of quotes mention Dagger in passing while talking about Tim Hinely. I still think that the zine is not notable, but Hinely seems to be, so probably it would be better to write an article about him in which Dagger could have a paragraph. --Randykitty (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a lengthy Google search plus reading of the cited sources doesn't demonstrate indepth coverage. In addition to this, many of the sources seem to be self-published. I'd like to see a single piece in a reliable source that is just about Dagger. Otherwise, fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." The sources provide adequate coverage and none listed are trivial. Maximumrocknroll is the "de facto bible of the scene," of which there are five sources. Factsheet Five is the "most important publication in its field." The journal is historically important in its subject area, as it soon will be the last music zine still printed. Self-published, printed fanzines is a vast, long-lifed subculture with a long tradition, and there are thousands of music fanzines, of which Dagger will be the last one. It is considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area, which, according to Pitchfork media, it is "one of the best." These criteria alone make Dagger notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there an in-depth profile of Dagger in a reliable source, where dagger is the main topic? I agree that ALL the sources don't need to be just about Dagger, but I'm not seeing one. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A profile as in depth as the one I've written undermines Wikipedia's purpose. Review journals are not equal to website reviews. If these magazines were 21st century, Dagger would have a unique url, instead of sharing the page with others. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m afraid I’m not following your logic. Lack of in-depth coverage usually indicates lack of notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:10, 1 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. Some discussion and some lamenting, but no one seems opposed to deletion here, barring better options. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boletín de la Sociedad Geológica del Perú

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

Non-notable journal. Although it has been around for quite some time, it doesn't appear to have made much impact. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A long-established journal of a national scientific society ought to be notable. Perhaps it was omitted from selective databases for being in Spanish. Is there a selective database that includes Spanish-language journals which might include it? I see some citations of articles published in the journal at this Google Scholar search. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both Scopus and the Science Citation Index Expanded list plenty Spanish-language journals. I think the problem here is more that Peru is not a "science heavyweight" so that this journal has not had much impact outside of the local geological society. There are non-selective Spanish-language databases (SciELO, for example) but even those don't list this. --Randykitty (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My preferred outcome would be a merge to Sociedad Geológica del Perú if we had that article. But we don't. So I must think. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that the society itself is actually notable... --Randykitty (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toofan Singh (film)

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

This film article fails all the criterias defined at Wikipedia:Notability (films). The film failed to get any attention and coverage other than WP:ROUTINE coverage of a film that was banned by Central Board of Film Certification. The subjects bio was a blatant WP:Puffery and I suspect the film's article and the WP:Bio were created for WP:Promotional reasons. DBig Xrayᗙ 06:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 06:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 06:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It may actually meet NFILM's review criteria, however it is far easier to assess that it meets WP:GNG. As the banning of the film in India (the paradox - leads to Wikipedia notability) led to independent coverage in RSes - [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36] - we have SIGCOV from sources independent of the movie (as well as a review by the censor). Icewhiz (talk) 11:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it clearly does not pass WP:NFILM review criteria which states that "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.". if you disagree please provide the reviews by nationally known critics. This article is a part interview + part Promo type article that is expected to be peddled by the Movie Promotion team of every film that gets released. It is expected that AfD contributors will produce sources that show the significant independent coverage per GNG. IMHO GNG should not be used as an excuse to bypass specific notability criterias such as WP:NFILM so as to help the movie PR team reap the benefits of the massive PR they peddle in the news media. The Notability bar for subjects that have a dedicated Promotion Team is actually higher that one would imagine. I note that all these news articles produced above are covering the exact same WP:ROUTINE news of ban of a movie, a news of ban is always covered as expected. [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. --DBig Xrayᗙ 08:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Film banning is not ROUTINE. You have misunderstood NFILM. The sources I pointed out above satisfy WP:NFSOURCES, which is NFILM's main criteria. You are referring to "Other evidence of notability" which is mainly for older films for which we do not have sources online and create presumed notability when we do not have sources. I will further note that the Indian censor is a national film critic and some of the other sources there may be seen as reviews - however as we pass GNG and NFILM by having multiple reliable, independent, and in depth sources - we do not need to evaluate "other evidence" WP:NFO.Icewhiz (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - one of the issues with movies is identifying independent sources due to the PR flap. The coverage of the banning (and the film therein) made identifying independent sources here quite easy - as the banning coverage is independent of the film's PR team.Icewhiz (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Icewhiz's reasoning and citations seem sound to me. Alarichall (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourcing and Icewhiz's reasoning are persuasive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alarichall, E.M.Gregory reading WP:PERX might be helpful for you. regards --DBig Xrayᗙ 07:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar. I have also looked at sources brought by Icewhiz, and run searches, and I find Icewhiz'a argument persuasive. Please WP:AGF and try to have a little respect for the work of fellow editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep because Wikipedia is not censored. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 08:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Harmanprtjhj (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Neither is Wikipedia for advocacy, propaganda, Advertising, marketing or public relations see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion--DBig Xrayᗙ 08:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the arguments above, which are certainly convincing. Also appears to have a notable cast. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, having a look at sources provided by Icewhiz above, agree that this meets WP:GNG. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:NF. Do take a look at the films at List of Bollywood films of 2019. If unreleased films can have articles given their notability, this can too. This film did get a theatrical release. Also, meeting only one of the criterion listed at WP:NFO would suffice. I am inclined to think the creator of the article may have a WP:COI though, from the history of their contributions, which seem to be limited to Toofan Singh. 2.51.191.30 (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toofan Singh

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

Fails WP:NSOLDIER. A young militant who did not held any top post in the organisation and died at the age of 19. The subject lacks WP:SIGCOV and only finds passing mentions or a couple of line description about his involvement in crimes. Another editor opined that the article was "Brazen Khalistani glorification." DBig Xrayᗙ 06:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A very obvious keep actually. A self-styled Lt. general and second in command of the KLF in its early days.[44] Oodles and oodles of sources. Not only that - he's been the subject of glorification in books and film - e.g. film - which are banned in India - [45][46]. Icewhiz (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz Thanks a lot for the kind comments. Talking about the sources you presented this is a passing mention. sikh24.com is not a reliable source and you will find all kinds of sikh propaganda there. " Self styled " is the operating word here self styled and self assumed titles doesn't really mean anything. WP:MILPERSON Clearly defines the criterias for such bios and this one fails it. I would like to hear from you which particular clause of WP:MILPERSON is satisfied here, If convinced I am ready to withdraw my AfD nomination. He was a militant of KLF who was involved in multiple crimes and a film glorifying him was banned is pretty much all the content that is available about this person. (I am not counting the trivia about his funeral since it is an obvious publicity stunt with no reliable source backing up that claim.) --DBig Xrayᗙ 06:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILPERSON merely creates standards for presumed notability - and is a poor fit for terror groups in any event. Soldiers may pass GNG if they don't pass MILPERSON - and many do. This is particularly so for irregular militants for which MILPERSON is of dubious relevance (as opposed to WP:PERP and WP:NCRIME). For this particular militant - it is quite obvious he's been the subject of a very extensive glorification campaign since he was killed in 1990 (the latest banned full length movie being just one example of such glorification). It also seems his death was fairly notable at the time he was killed (e.g. there are sources from the 80s and 90s (e.g. the source I threw out above was from 1990 when he was killed) - despite being young, it seems he was important or that his death caught on very early as martyr story). It is quite clear to me he passes GNG. There may indeed be WP:NPOV issues in the article - but that's not cause for deletion. Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz, It appears that our standards for notability are very different. lets ask the obvious questions. Did this person cause a major terror event that was widely reported ? No. Did this person do anything that was widely covered ? No. I am yet to hear from you on the basis of which sources you are claiming this subject passes GNG. The terrorist group sympathizers made a propaganda movie glorifying him that was a flop and tanked everywhere it was released without getting any coverage. Just because he was the subject of a propaganda film does not provide automatic notability. --DBig Xrayᗙ 07:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm basing my !vote here (as elsewhere) on WP:SIGCOV - not on his "success" or lack thereof in terror. We have coverage of the movie (2014-2019) - [47][48][49][50][51][52]. Now, if this was just the movie - I'd say - just merge it to the movie. However coverage of Singh pre-dates the movie. He's covered in sources on terrorism in India - e.g. 2005 book "A well-known militant of the KLF, Toofan Singh Toofan alias Jugraj Singh which expressly states he is well known. or 1999 book "Dreaded terrorists namely Jugraj Singh alias Toofan Singh", 2005 book "Yugraj Singh alias Toofan Singh Toofan of the Khalistan Commando Force who was responsible for more than 150 killings", 1990 reporting "This trend has been on the increase since a "bhog' for a slain terrorist chieftain, Jugraj Singh alias Toofan Singh in Batala police district two months ago evoked a tremendous response. And while the Government..., 1990, 1999, 2000. And I suspect a newspaper archive search (as 1990 is for the most part not digitized + these sources are referring to media coverage in late 80s and 1990) - will bring a whole bunch of more sources here. So - coverage in 1990. Continuing coverage in the context of being a terrorist leader in the decades since, a full length feature film on him (+a whole bunch of other propaganda online), and coverage of the film and its banning (in which Toofan is also discussed). This all is WP:SIGCOV. 07:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What you call as the coverage of the movie is actually the coverage of the "announcement of ban on the movie". Moreover, articles talking about the movie can't be used to claim notability of the subject. The sources you listed i.e. siksiyasat.net, sikh24.com, singhstation.net, etc are Sikh right wing blogs/propaganda sites and those propaganda articles cannot be used to claim anything. Rawat Publications, Trikuta Radiant Publications, none of them are noteworthy or trusted publication houses. Also it should be noted that all of these including [53] are passing mentions in a line or two of the subject. The SIGCOV is decided on the sources that are available. As a contributor who regularly contributes to India related topics, I can tell you that the sources from 1980s in India are widely available online, and one doesn't need to invoke WP:MUSTBESOURCES for this time period to claim notability. I will agree to disagree with you on the SIGCOV here. --DBig Xrayᗙ 08:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hindustan Times: Censor declines to clear ‘Toofan Singh’; The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has refused to clear Punjabi film ‘Toofan Singh’, which is based on the life of Jugraj Singh ‘Toofan’, Khalistani militant who was killed in an encounter at 19. , and lots more pops up in the simplest news search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory we are discussing the person Toofan Singh and not his movie.--DBig Xrayᗙ 08:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV. and Note that if even a not-very-good or outright propaganda film gets SIGCOV, it's still SIGCOV, and that age of death is irrelevant, only the quality and extent of coverage is relevant to assessing notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the film is a tick towards notability but although there are news items that describe Singh as "a top militant", and"terrorist chieftain", these are just snips, i have been unable to any indepth coverage, so at the moment, this looks like a ~~Merge~~ to Toofan Singh (film) with a paragraph or two. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, because sourcing isnot limited to the film. He shows up quite well in a gBook search [54]. Article needs expansion, but sourcing exists and notability is clear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thankyou E.M.Gregory, looking at the gbook search above agree that sources are there so i change to Keep (a small trout to coola for being a silly kitty would be appreciated:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. E.M Gregorys rationales are very convincing.BabbaQ (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep easily meets GNG. Nomination is meritless. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Harmanprtjhj (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. DBig Xrayᗙ 07:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC) Note that this comment is by DBig. Nothing unusual in page creator arguing "Keep" while page nominator argues "delete.".E.M.Gregory (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory please check WP:AFDFORMAT, where it explains that he was expected to explicitly declare the conflict of interest, which he did not, hence the tag, per WP:AVOIDCOI--DBig Xrayᗙ 07:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Brown (designer)

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

I am afraid the subject fails WP:NPROF and the wider WP:GNG. Perhaps unsurprisingly, as a scholar who j ust got Masters 5 years ago (no information about a PhD, through one would assume any Associate Professor should have one), it's way WP:TOOSOON for her to be notable. Being a co-winer of "Publishers' Association of New Zealand Book Design Award for Best Non-Illustrated book" is nice, but that award seems relatively minor (it doesn't have a Wikipedia article, nor does the awarding company, and I don't see coverage of this award/recipients in the media...) and is not sufficient in itself for making the subject notable. PS. Through not a factor in the notability of the subject, we should note the COI of the article's creator, whose userpage declares "Jo Bailey is a designer at Massey University.", making the article creator likely a co-worker or student of the subject. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Brown has also been a joint exhibitor with Anne Noble of "Whiteout Whitenoise" but more is needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To teach design, even as an associate professor, usually only requires a masters degree, mostly in the form of a terminal degree such as an MFA or MDesign. freshacconci (✉) 11:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't make the bar. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article sources are largely primary. A search does to find adequate secondary independent RS to establish WP:GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no evidence that she is exceptional among academics. If the creator can state otherwise then I will change to "draft". (Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

REPAIR Impact Fund

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

Investment fund lacking significant coverage in independent sources. The page is completely advertorial. Citrivescence (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 04:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 04:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Complete Rewrite, article is one large advertisement for this fund, and either needs deletion or to be completely rewritten. Jeb³ _{Talk at me here} 12:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Dinternational: Replying to the article creator here since I think you mistakenly replied to me on the talk page. The page was nominated for deletion not just because of the writing style, but also the lack of significant coverage according to WP:GNG. You can feel free to edit the page while the discussion is open here at AfD. Citrivescence (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: This Fund already enjoys a section on the Novo Holdings A/S Entry and I'm not convinced there's enough WP:RS to warrant its own entry at this time; but I do not have access to the FT article. Pegnawl (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Khalistan Commando Force. Randykitty (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gurdev Singh Debu

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

Non notable militant that fails WP:NSOLDIER. District commander rank is not notable. Article largely original research. DBig Xrayᗙ 03:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Khalistan Commando Force - he was one of five founders per this ABC-CLIO book. I suspect he may be notable (possibly in non-English), and that his COMMONNAME is "Bhai Gurdev Singh Debu", seems there are various claims he was boiled alive. However, the entire article (besides being in the founding group) isn't reliably sourced, and with what I found I don't see him passing GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz Gurdev is his first name, Singh is a common Sikh title, and Debu is his surname/familyname. Bhai translates to Brother in Hindi and Punjabi language. It is a common WP:HONORIFIC so it seems you are sourcing your opinion based on sikh propaganda sites glorifying him.--DBig Xrayᗙ 09:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: - The redirect !vote is based on an ABC-CLIO book. My suspicion on the common form of his name and that there are " various claims he was boiled alive" - are indeed based on what I see (name form, and the boiling alive account) in what I would see as non-reliable sources. I attempted to track this down further (based on various name forms, boiling alive, Khalistan, his birth and death dates, etc.) - but was unable to find sources I would consider reliable. Accounts in non-reliable sources do not establish notability, however they are sometimes useful in finding reliable sources, and are often an indication that sourcing might exist. In short - I agree with your nomination here. Redirects are cheap - and him being a KCF founder is reliably sourced, and the name itself is a plausible search term. Icewhiz (talk) 09:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Khalistan Commando Force, as individually this subject can't stand and there is hardly anything to improve more as per my searches tell me. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 16:02, 2 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) 16:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Signal Fire Films

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

Film company with questionable notability. So far has just made one film, from the look of it, it might be no longer around either. Not sure how to treat a company with just one film, but I think that it would be a redirect at most. Wgolf (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH and also only one short film listed at imdb, could redirect to the article on that film but it shows no signs of notability with no external reviews at imdb for example Atlantic306 (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P. Elmo Futrell Jr.

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

Non-notable small-city mayor who fails WP:NPOL. The sources used in this article are either local newspaper articles, some of which are not even about him (11, 12 & 16); basic government and cemetery records, military enlistment, census, and election returns (3, 4, 5, 7, 9); obituaries, some of which aren't even his (1, 2, 14, 15, & 17); web searches (8 & 13); a local church's history (10); and a pdf of a lawsuit GPL93 (talk) 00:47, 28 March 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 March 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NPOL Reywas92^Talk 06:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the mayors of Pineville are not inherently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 2 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 Piero Ballerini. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alguien se acerca

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

An unreleased film. Now while yes there are articles for films like these and I don't mind them, they at least have something more about them. So either delete or redirect/merge to Piero Ballerini is what I am thinking. Wgolf (talk) 00:48, 28 March 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 March 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as above as this unreleased film does not seem to be independently notable, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Garchomp Evolution Line

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

A pokemon evolution line is not independently notable - I attempted to redirect to where Garchomp redirects but has now been contested by the creator. This is basically the equivalent of a game guide. Praxidicae (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page should be merged with Pseudo-Legendary Pokémon

-User:Professor Profession —Preceding undated comment added 22:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - violates WP:NOTGUIDE,WP:IINFO, and WP:VGSCOPE. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 23:36, 27 March 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 March 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and Kirbanzo. Aoba47 (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:SIGCOV, and much like the creator's likewise newly-created Pseudo-Legendary Pokémon is mostly just pokédex entries copied from pokemondb.net. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no notability outside of the games themselves. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kirbanzo's comment, and the fact that the line hasn't made a large impact on the real world. InvalidOS talk 16:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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