Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 May	15 May >

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 delete. The band clearly fails WP:GNG, and the article not (yet) suitable for main article space. In lieu of deleting the history, though, I am fine with it going back to draft space for more incubation. —C.Fred (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Antiworld

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

Non-notable band that fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. No third-party coverage, no work with any notable label nor any official releases. Promotional article created by single-purpose user with no other editing history. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 23:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 01:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 01:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Music. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and doesn't satisfy WP:BAND. Lapablo (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: article creator has moved the article back to draftspace, so this deletion discussion is now moot. Richard3120 (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Carter

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

Doesn't meet WP:PROF guidelines:
1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
In terms of citation counts, his most cited paper has 124 citations according to Google Scholar, his h-index is 33, these are good but not exceptional statistics. I can't see any sign that he has had an exceptional impact in the field of total synthesis. He doesn't pass the "Average Professor Test" on these grounds.

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
The awards on his CV do not seem to fit this definition of highly prestigious - most were obtained as an undergraduate, graduate or postdoc, or are internal to OSU (e.g. Sugihara young faculty award)

3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the IEEE).
There is no evidence for this.

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
Again, no sign of this.

5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
Although he was the Chair of the Chemistry Department at OSU from 2012 to 2017, this is an administrative role and not an endowed Chair.

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
No, unless Chair of the Chemistry Department counts - I think the bar is higher than that though.

7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
He has founded a company, but so have lots of other people. I found a few local news items about Valliscor on Google News, but nothing particularly noteworthy.

8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
No.

9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.
No.

In summary, while he seems like a good scientist, there is no evidence that he meets the WP:PROF notability criteria. Polyharrisson (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. For example, see Portland Business Journal. Andrew D. (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Four papers with over 100 cites is borderline but above threshold to me. I thought this was going to be one of those rare cases where the only verifiable thing we could say about him was the existence of a few highly-cited publications, so that he would pass WP:PROF but fail WP:V, and I was prepared to head for a weak delete on that basis, but Andrew D.'s link has proved me wrong. It's too local to add much to notability, however. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment Do these help? They're about impact of projects he's been involved in, and he is named as primary collaborator in one and "a national leader in this field and co-inventor of the new catalyst" in the other:

University of Bristol, "The Early Bits of Life"
Phys.org "New organic catalyst should enhance drug research and development" Schazjmd (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the first article is a different Rich Carter (mathematician based in Bristol, UK), the second is a press release from his employer (Oregon State University). Polyharrisson (talk) 07:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Polyharrisson, you're right, I didn't read them closely enough. Schazjmd (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG per Andrew D . Lubbad85 (☎) 17:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Portland Business Journa articlel meets WP:GNG and over 2.7K cited as per Google Scholar citation passes NACADEMIC #1. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just to put the citations/h-index in a bit of context - there are nearly 3000 scientists with an h-index of >= 100 [1]. 547 living chemists have an h-index >= 55 [2]. I couldn't find numbers for h>30, but there must be thousands of chemists who would qualify. Polyharrisson (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep per David Eppstein, and CASSIOPEIA. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The research description read like a copyvio, so I tried checking it out. Some of it appears lifted from his lab website, but weirdly, the sentence His work includes investigations on selective catalysis, including the design, discovery, and study of systems that mediate fundamentally interesting and useful organic reactions seems to be taken from a writeup about somebody else. XOR'easter (talk) 17:28, 20 May 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. T. Canens (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Seeman

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

I am unconvinced that either WP:BIO, WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR are met. On the BIO front, none of the sources currently used are independent, reliable and contain in depth coverage of the subject. This in National Post is the best source I could find but it's probably not enough. I don't see anything on the PROF front which would get him over the notability threshold either - this 2016 paper has 52 citations according to google scholar but judging by this search his h-index is < 10. Finally, on the author front, I can't find any substantial writing on his books. SmartSE (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also WP:SOAP. This article was created by a confirmed undisclosed paid editor (The Mather Group LLC). Later significant edits were by SPAs and more recently another known undisclosed paid editor. --MarioGom (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a single independent, secondary, reliable source covering this person as main subject. Does not meet general notability criteria. Spyder212 (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet GNG, PROF or AUTHOR. --Tataral (talk) 13:20, 15 May 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. T. Canens (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Dirty Disco

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

Not seeing anything that satisfies WP:MUSICIAN. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria. Official website is a Myspace page... Spyder212 (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 01:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Simply a WP:YAMB who never made it – they were in existence for less than three years, and released just three singles, the first of which was on a non-notable record label, and the other two were self-released. Yes, they got played on a national radio station (albeit after midnight, when the show in question is broadcast), but this radio show only seeks out and plays unknown new acts, so by definition every band played on the show will be not notable at that stage in their career. Richard3120 (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that WP:BAND criteria regarding radio play specifies a band's work/song needs to be in rotation as opposed to random play(s) on a specific show. No evidence is provided that this band's work was in rotation. ShelbyMarion (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely - the nature of the show in question is that bands only get played once on it, as their "big break", and then the presenter moves on to the hundreds of other acts waiting for their song to be played. It's very unlikely that they or any other act on the programme got more than a single spin. Richard3120 (talk) 21:38, 16 May 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 Blockade of the Gaza Strip. T. Canens (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just Future For Palestine Flotilla

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

Unsourced, and probably not notable. Alex.osheter (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is sourced with 27 refs and although a lot of them are self sourced there are some independent ones such as New Zealand Herald, Times of Israel and Reuters. I remember this event received a lot of coverage in the UK including the BBC, Channel 4 and broadsheets such as The Guardian and The Telegraph that had secondary coverage, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

37 refs of which 34 are primary sources, 1 is a blog, and the remaining 2 describe a single event on October 26 2018. This event is better suited for Blockade of the Gaza Strip. Alex.osheter (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The New Zealand Herald and The Times of Israel are reliable sources, and their coverage is enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Smerge The article has a couple of reliable sources, but they aren't about the flotilla itself, they're about an even that may or may not be notable. I personally don't think the event fits WP:EVENT. It did not have any lasting effects that I can find, the geographical scope is very small, it was only covered for a couple of days, and was not covered in much depth. There's an argument to be made about the notability of the event, but as far as the flotilla itself having its own Wikipedia page, it's not notable enough. Alex.osheter (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 01:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect or very selective merge to Blockade of the Gaza Strip (or is there a list article for such attempts? There are quite a few attempts). Fails WP:NEVENT due to lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. While the article has been WP:REFBOMBed - the vast majority are page from the jfp.freedomflotilla.org website and a few other unreliable sources (e.g. wordpress blog). Other than that - there is a smattering of rather minute NEWSORG coverage from July-August 2018. Icewhiz (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete Falls WP:GNG.The only that maybe notable is boarding event but this fails WP:NOTNEWS and doesn't meet any criteria of WP:EVENTCRIT all other source are primary sources that cannot satisfy WP:GNG.--Shrike (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect... perhaps we could have an article entitled, Post 2010 flotillas to Gaza, or similar. There is a brief account of a 2011 flotilla inappropriately in Blockade of the Gaza Strip#Blockade timeline 2007-2010 that could be added to such a page. Point is that Blockade of the Gaza Strip#June 2010 easing of the blockade happened. so 2010 makes a logical date for these 3 later, less publicized flotillas, including the 2016 Women's Boat to Gaza. Sourcing available to keep this as a stand-along page is not sufficient. And the page reads as a sort of promotion for long lists of non-notable individual participants. We have larger political demonstrations every day in many cities, but we do not create articles on brief, ROUTINE coverage that of small, WP:MILL demonstrations like this one. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
sources: New Zealand Herald: Unite Union leader Mike Treen reportedly tasered repeatedly by Israeli military the article takes a skeptical tone from the headline on, "union leader was reportedly tasered ," and is not SIGCOV of the incident. the times of Israel article [3] is SIGCOV, but, is this all there is? Everything else on the page is PRIMARY. We need more sources to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And per WP:NEVENT - WP:SUSTAINED coverage to show this event had any sort of WP:LASTING effect. All we have is from around the event itself.Icewhiz (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has plenty of 'sources' but if you examine them, they are primary or are insufficient to assert notability. Enigma^msg 15:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, as most sources by far are primary. Does not meet WP:GNG. XavierItzm (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject easily meets WP:GNG with substantial mainstream news coverage. The New Zealand Herald, The Times of Israel and I just added The Guardian G are reliable sources, and their coverage is enough to establish notability. Lubbad85 (☎) 19:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge; to Blockade of the Gaza Strip or Blockade of the Gaza Strip#Blockade timeline 2007-2010 Enough there to keep, but it is basically a single event by an organized coalition. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that 7&6=thirteen appears not to have looked at the page before offering an opinion, because this protest happened in 2018, making it ineligible for merging into a section on events between 2007 - 2010. Political developments that occurred in 2010 make it inappropriate to extent that section to 2018.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Icewhiz and Enigma. I personally don't think there's enough to merge. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:38, 21 May 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 JG Thirlwell. Material can be copied over from the page history as desired and per WP:CWW Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manorexia

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

There is no evidence of notability for this “band”. Trillfendi (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to JG Thirlwell per WP:NOPAGE, as the subject may be notable but is best covered in context within a broader article. I also note that there have been no substantive edits for five years, yet there was no attempt at PROD and not even an attempt to redirect before bringing it here. I encourage the nominator to reread WP:DELETE, especially all the parts before "Deletion discussion". Bakazaka (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to JG Thirlwell who is clearly notable, so do not delete before redirect to enable a merge, not sufficiently independently notable for a seperate article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:32, 16 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Frey

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

Non-notable presenter. Article is more like a CV. - Funky Snack (Talk) 20:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTRESUME and 0 sources. Trillfendi (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria. As already stated above, WP:NOTRESUME... Spyder212 (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Found really nothing in searches when I tried to strengthen it. From bio, one might wonder if she is notable. But no sources at all to verify that.

Exploreandwrite (talk) 08:13, 21 May 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 06:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three Quarter Ale

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

Fails notability per WP:NBAND. Google search only brings up Social Media profiles, which do not contribute to WP:GNG. Bkissin (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG - I could find no coverage to meet the requirement that the band, "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Did not find any secondary reliable sources. Does not meet general notability criteria. Spyder212 (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:15, 15 May 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 06:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Known World Players

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

Hasn't met WP:GNG since 2015. No sources cited. Google search brings up soccer players and sources linked to Society for Creative Anachronism who merely list the group, not WP:SIGCOV. Bkissin (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:GNG, has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - I couldn't find any write ups anywhere, so delete - Epinoia (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria. Spyder212 (talk) 01:19, 15 May 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Jolly Rogers

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

Not notable per WP:NMUSIC. Only source cited is their website, google search brings up social media and passing mentions on Ren Faire websites that would not constitute WP:SIGCOV or meet WP:GNG in my eyes Bkissin (talk) 15:35, 7 May 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 May 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while it could be argued that the band "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style," it still has to meet WP:BAND and WP:GNG and I could find no coverage at all to meet the requirement that the band, "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article is entirely sourced to WP:SELFPUBLISHED WP:PRIMARY sources, and it doesn't look like there's anything better out there. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:41, 21 May 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 pointed out, all relevant info already in the parent article. Tone 18:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richat Structure (Atlantis fringe theory)

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

Thus is a copy and paste for here [[4]] with a couple of lines added. Not sure if I should regard it as a fork, as it really is the same material.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that the section in Location hypotheses of Atlantis is too long, it needs to mention the two waves that this fringe theory has undergone and the different "reasons" underpinning them. It doesn't really need an extensive discussion about the more detailed aspects of how the theory underwent fame as a viral event (Viral video, tabloids, and mainstream press) which logically could find a home here in a more detailed article. Keizers (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see. Then it might have been a goods idea to have done that first, or even at any point after this AFD was launched. At this time it is a duplication, for which there is no justification.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Slatersteven, I did that here. Can we keep this article now? Keizers (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Please. Mlewan (talk) 06:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The parent article covers it already. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore, it was too much information for the parent article and I've edited it down to an appropriate amount.Keizers (talk) 01:17, 20 May 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. T. Canens (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shuchir Suri

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Presented sources are either interview or do not cover the subject in-depth. Hitro talk 10:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the Article is based on Good Sources with the same information shown in the article Shuchir Suri. Radadiyageet (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems entirely promotional - doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO - Epinoia (talk) 02:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Don't delete~~* Criticism and sources added. Now the Article Shuchir Suri seems complete with sources and facts. ShaymAnu (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Don't delete~~ as the Article is improved now. Promotional Words deleted and Criticism added by contributors. Radadiyageet (talk) 06:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Something seems fishy here. Radadiyageet was the one who created the article in the first place. In addition, ShaymAnu had very few edits, but mostly editing that article.CobaltBlue101 (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- additional Comment - I agree, there seems to be an element of promotion here, WP:SPIP, WP:NOTPROMOTION - Epinoia (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBIO. Non-notable individual. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @ShaymAnu and Radadiyageet: if you don't want to confuse the closing admin, please say Keep and not Don't delete. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - CobaltBlue101,Epinoia and Rsrikanth05, I agree that I am editing this article mostly, But i suggest to check the quality of an Article also. The Article is neutral and completely based on the reliable sources now which are fair enough as per Wikipedia Policy. There is no promotional word in Article and also a Criticism Section added now so If you still find it as promotional Article, You can improve the Article instead of deleting it because we all are here for Contribution. Thank You. Radadiyageet (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- see WP:PLEASEDONT - looking more and more like promotion and advertising - WP:NOTADVERTISING - and I couldn't locate the guideline, but I believe that each editor gets one !vote, not multiple !votes - Epinoia (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After looking at the sources and the article itself, I agree with Hitro. CobaltBlue101 (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I also agree with Hitro but I would say there are also many other sources cited in Article which we can not ignore. I also agree with Radadiyageet that the Article should be improved instead of deleting it if needed. ShaymAnu (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs a more detailed discussion of the sources to see if any of them satisfies WP:GNG
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOO SOON. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable for sure, with enough sources to prove that. Exploreandwrite (talk) 08:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMOTION - GretLomborg (talk) 21:51, 21 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Mackwani

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

Promotional article. Not seeing enough here or online to pass WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: WP:G4, highly doubt there were any improvements made since the previous nomination. Article still lacks sufficient coverage in RS. Subject is not notable fails WP:BIO Ceethekreator (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I searched for the author, She does have a knowledge panel on google, maybe that's because of Google Books, but after reading her article she seems to be notable enough to have an article, though the information written in the article is not well sourced, I think the article can be established later in time, as of now unsourced information needs to be removed and only what work she has done could be remained. WikiLover97 (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: WP:G4 and SALT. She hasn't won the Nobel Prize in the 2 months days since the last AfD closed as DELETE, or anything else that would justify this speedy recreation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep as the nominator has stated it has good sources and may be notable. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shruti Naidu

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

This person maybe notable as I dont know about Kannada Cinema, but I googled her there was nothing much, I think it does not passes WP:GNG though it does have good sources but I read at Ananya Panday's article discussion actor needs two films released. thats why I'm submitting for AFD WikiLover97 (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WikiLover97 (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Singh (writer)

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

Non notable author/blogger. Has not received any press and the only notable reference is the one from Rajasthan Patrika, which happens to be a screengrab of a poem submitted by the said person. Fails WP:GNG Jupitus Smart 18:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of an article's subject is usually determined by verifiable evidence of notability. How can one determine which sources to consider when determining the notability of a subject? We search for the subject on a search engine and then we get links to them. Some is by local level media and some by other independent sources. Then what should we do? I personally know people who are notable at local level but lack so called verifiable evidence and don't have Wikipedia articles on that subject. And, also I have encountered various articles on Wikipedia itself where a single reference determines their notability. Please clarify on the above point. Regarding the article, it is upto you and the other users/editors to determine if it meets criteria or not. I am NO ONE to suggest to keep it or delete. Thanks Sentiments777 (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete after spending a few minutes, it is evident that the subject fails WP:AUTHOR, and WP:GNG as well. —usernamekiran(talk)
@Sentiments777: the answers to your queries can be found at WP:reliable sources. There are also certain cases where the subject is de-facto notable, like a census town (doesnt matter what the population is, if it exists, and can be verified then it should have an article). Certain elected persons are de-facto notable as well. In Indian terminology, all MPs, and MLA's are notable. Only one reliable source stating that they are/were elected is more than sufficient for having an article. If you have further questions, please feel free to ask me on my talkpage. Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 05:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, fails WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:25, 19 May 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) 17:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Bagaria

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

Appears to fail WP:N and is mostly written as a promotional piece. 40% of the sources are primary. --Chris (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Chris (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. --Chris (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE IT SHOULD BE CLEARLY DELETED BECAUSE IT IS PROBABLY A PROMOTIONAL PIECE AND NO RELIABLE NEWS SOURCES CITED. I WOULD SUGGEST DELETION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Stud0708 (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "As soon as possible" is a little alarmist. There is no rush. AfD discussions are typically kept open for a week. --Chris (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another of way too many articles on non-notable businessmen. Wikipedia is being abused as a form of LinkedIn, this has to stop.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 19 May 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hronovka and Regnerka

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

Fails WP:GNG. [Couldn't find additional] no third party sources [needed to pass GNG]. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Miserably fails GNG, no SIGCOV. --qedk (t 桜 c) 05:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]
Withdraw vote citing improvements in sourcing, thanks to Phil Bridger et al. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How are IDNES and Český rozhlas not third-party sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What Phil Bridger said. The article may be a paltry stub, but it is sourced. Jdcooper (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jdcooper, the article seems to be lacking references. I think it might just about scrapes WP:GNG as it currently stands. Also, the medical claims are probably a bit dubious since it is not from a medical journal. The claims fall in the realms of homeopathy. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but there are ways of wording that. That is why they are famous, even if it's not backed up by medical research. And it's certainly not a reason to delete the article. Jdcooper (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have expanded the article a bit from the sources listed and one of the external links. Jdcooper (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable geographic feature per ~~WP:GEOFEAT~~ WP:GEOLAND, also appears to pass WP:GNG from Czech sources. SportingFlyer T·C 12:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GEOFEAT only applies to artificial structures. The Czech sources (which are in Czech) are barely reliable. --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What makes them any less reliable than, say, one of the top British national newspapers and BBC Radio? And what has being in Czech got to do with anything? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Turistika is a tourist directory sort of website (fails SIGCOV), and both of the more reliable sources are updates on repairing the springs, and not any sort of significant coverage on the natural springs itself (fails SIGCOV) accompanied with photogalleries. And the quite obvious problem with sources in Czech is that it's infinitely more difficult to ascertain source content and reliability. --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can hear the noise of goalposts being moved. I was writing about your comment that the sources (and I mean the ones from iDNES and Český rozhlas that were in the article before it was nominated) are barely reliable, but then you went on to answer about significant coverage rather than reliablity. Get such concepts clear in your own mind before writing. As regards significant coverage, then how are articles about the restoration of the springs not significant coverage of the springs? And it is blindingly obvious to anyone with a half-way open mind that the sources not being in English has no bearing whatsoever on their contribution towards notability. The English Wikipedia is not just a mirror of what is available in English for free at the click of a mouse. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Opinions can't change? Upon further consideration I elected to think that the sources were atleast more reliable that I said they were and I changed my opinion, if you want me (and every person) to mark in big, red letters everytime thay have changed their mind in order to make you aware that the the goalposts have moved, tell me and I'll let everyone know they have to, too. And fwiw, I do not possess magical lingual abilities that can parse any language with a 100% accuracy, maybe you do but there's a reason editors knowing English edit the English Wikipedia while editors knowing Czech edit the Czech. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course if your opinion that these sources are "barely reliable" has changed you should say so. How else can the closer of this discussion know that? And I'm afraid I find it just too tiresome to explain to people why sources not in English, just the same as sources that need access to an academic library to read or need other, non-linguistic, specialised knowledge to understand properly, are just as valid as those that you can find for free online in English. If you don't understand that simple point then you just don't get the idea of an encyclopedia that should give people more information than a Google search. You made a simple mistake in your first assessment of this article, and rather than change your opinion you are using confirmation bias to make more and more outlandish claims as to why this should be deleted in accordance with your knee-jerk reaction. Just stop digging. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I am not worried about the law of holes. You keep arguing ad hominem instead of talking about the point I am making. In fact, if you even understood confirmation bias you would not used it in this particular methaphor, I changed my argument instead of arguing they were reliable over and over with a set outcome in mind, that's the literal opposite of confirmation bias. It still stands that GEOFEAT does not apply but you will ignore that to argue ad hominem about why I'm saying, instead of arguing on the facts I am trying to present, even as I gave you an assessment of the sources and why they fail SIGCOV, your point is more about how I argued and the fact that I said Czech sources are more difficult to understand (for obvious reasons) than English ones, which literally any other editor can attest in reality to, unless they are Czech, which maybe you are, but I am not. G'day, I'm out. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to WP:GEOLAND. Mis-typed the nomination. Furthermore the WP:GNG argument I made discusses articles not currently cited such as [5]ecky-ministerstvo.A190204_455330_hradec-zpravy_tuu] and [https://nachodsky.denik.cz/zpravy_region/oblibena-prdlavka-vytryskne-z-uplne-noveho-prameniku-20130830.html (I did a Czech-region search). SportingFlyer T·C 12:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. I do not understand the nomination - there were two perfectly good independent, reliable sources with significant coverage in the article at the time it was brought to AfD. The article has now been expanded and other sources added, which is a bonus, but there does not appear to have been a genuine rationale for bringing it to AfD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RebeccaGreen, I checked via Google and Google news and can't find any more sources. These two sources seem to only report 1 event. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Before you wrote that I had cited some more sources in the article, including a book published many years before the recent restoration of these springs. And your nomination said "no third party sources" even when there were two third-party sources staring you in the face. You can't be surprised when people express incredulity at such a nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Bridger, well this was the version at nomination https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hronovka_and_Regnerka&direction=next&oldid=833797269

Both articles cover the same event. And I can't find any other sources talking about the the subject. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, for crying out loud, why can't anyone supporting deletion in this discussion stick to the point. The matter is simple. The version that you nominated and just linked had two third-party sources. You said it had none. That means that you either didn't look at the article before nomination or that you were lying. And how can you still not find any more sources when there are (and were before you made that statement) more cited in the article and in this discussion? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Bridger, as q said above, I think there needs to be more third party sources than what's in the article. I can't find any using Google or Google News beyond the 3 articles which all cover a single event. There edited to clarify my statement. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The book source that I cited was published in 1998, so obviously is not about an event that happened in 2013. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've cited some more sources that were published before the single event that the goalposts have now shifted to after the first four reasons offered for deletion were debunked. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brecon Carreg

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

Fails WP:GNG. Have been tagged with {{notability|companies}} since April 2012. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:12, 14 May 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) 17:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Back Yard Recordings

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

NCORP fail. Unsourced since 2008. Article created by account Backyardrecordings . This is the second AfD; the first garnered no discussion. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rewrite. Has significant former clients, but not in itself WP:Notable. Possible conflict of interest also makes it lean more towards deletion. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NCORP. It's true that the Gossip gave the label some commercial success in 2006 with "Standing in the Way of Control" and a few other singles, but that seems to have been the label's moment in the sun, and the only other chart hit I can find is one song by Seelenluft which reached number 70 in the UK – most of the other acts are notable, but they had their chart successes with other labels, not with Back Yard. There doesn't seem to be any in-depth coverage about the label itself, and I strongly suspect that it ceased trading in 2012, as I can't find any releases or social media posts/tweets from the label after this date. Richard3120 (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although the label lists a number of notable artists, I believe the label fails NMUSIC#5 because:

The Similou doesn't mention the label at all in the article, and is of dubious notability itself
Dega Breaks is of highly dubious notability, in fact it seems the biggest claim to notability is that is signed to Back Yard
Although Chromeo lists Back Yard as one of their labels, the label does not appear in their discography.
Ali Love is unsourced, but since it charted it is likely a notable band. So this kinda-sorta-maybe might help towards NMUSIC#5
Wiley (musician) does not even mention the label
Tyson is non-notable, it just links to the disambiguation page
Gossip (band) is notable, but only appears on Back Yard as a remix.

Therefore this label does not have a "roster of performers, many of whome are independently notable" and is not one of the "more important independent labels." My search for sources via Google, Google News, and newspapers.com turned up nothing, appears to fail GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

78.26: this is exactly the issue... Wiley, Chromeo and Ali Love are all notable artists, but none of them were signed to Back Yard when they attained their notability and chart success. The only band who was is Gossip. Richard3120 (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it genrally accepted here in the music discussions that if a label signs a notable artist, the label is notable? Because that goes against WP:NOTINHERITED. WP:NMUSIC #5 is also referenced above in terms of contribution to the label's notability, but it is a actually a notability guideline for the song, not the label.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:53, 20 May 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Babel Label

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

NCORP fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added info from another source. All three sources used are "significant coverage in [...] reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", thus meeting WP:ORGCRITE. Babel is an independent jazz record label: a niche area, so lots of coverage is not to be expected. Coverage of the organisation in jazz publications is about all we can expect to find, and is what all of the sources provide (not just passing mentions / album reviews / press releases / etc.). EddieHugh (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has sources.
Vmavanti (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article rescued by EddieHugh, GNG shown to be met. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:24, 20 May 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) 17:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Auralux Recordings

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

Inadequate sourcing to support NCORP. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable as a record label - reissues only, so roster of notable artists is irrelevant. Fails WP:NMUSIC#5. The label itself has not gained any attention of substance, and therefore not notable per NCORP and GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NCORP. As 78.26 notes above, all releases on this label are reissues of records that were previously on other labels, or compilations. None of these releases were hits, and the label has not received coverage in significant sources. Richard3120 (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina’s Broadway Connection

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

Prod tag removed without comment. Subject fails notability guidelines at WP:COMPANY, also fails WP:GNG Ifnord (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 12:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Health Action International

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

promotional article for organization without demonstrable notability . inadequately referenced organization. Most of the references are about the problems they try to solve. Some are press releases extensively quoting the organization. Some are mentions . Not one is a third party source substantially about the organization. Specifically: 1. is by the organization 2. is an inclusion on a listing. 3,4,5,6, 7, 8, 9, 10 are about snakebite. Some mention the organization, or are apparently press releases by its staff. 11,12,13,14,15 are about insulin shortages.Some mention the organization, or are apparently press releases by its staff, or information derived from the organization 17,18,19, similarly. DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping to improve the article. With regards to the references I have rewritten the article so the numbering of the references might not correspond anymore to the above numbering system. The following are third party newspapers that ask for HAI's opinions on the subject and should show that they are an expert on the problem that the organization is working on. They are all third party references.

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8] ^[9] ^[10]

Refs added later: ^[11] ^[12] ^[13] ^[14] ^[15] ^[16]

^[17]

2. This is a posting by the WHO that HAI is a certified WHO actor so that should show that they are notable.^[11] 3. Should I remove all references that point to the org's own web page? I don't see that as necessarily bad and requiring deletion of the page but if they have to go they can.^[12] 4. I deleted a reference about snakebite that does not specifically ref HAI. 5. The Lancet article is RS and specifically references HAI's study so that is both notable and third party and not primary research. ^[14] 6. BMJ is a RS and references HAI specifically. ^[13] 7. I don't see this as a press release as Nessa Childers, Member of the European Parliament is talking about the issue and mentions a press release by HAI. ^[15] I don't see any particular press releases in the references. And none of the authors seem to work for HAI. Did I miss one?

This might be special pleading but this about a non-profit working to bring good scientifically approved medicines to Africa and prevent deaths. What is wrong about that?--Akrasia25 (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Being a "certified actor" doesn't imply notability its a list of everyone they work with that isn't a government DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Eveleens, Ilona (August 21, 2018). "Slangenbeten zijn een vergeten ziekte ten zuiden van de Sahara". de Verdieping Trouw. de Verdieping Trouw. Retrieved 14 May 2019.
^ Chakraborty, Ajanta (February 23, 2019). "New WHO strategy aims to halve the global impact of snakebite". The Times of India. The Times of India. Retrieved 14 May 2019.
^ MCFARLING, USHA LEE (12 June 2017). "Snakebite finally makes a WHO list of top global health priorities". STAT. Retrieved 14 May 2019.
^ "La morsure de serpent, un fléau oublié qui empoisonne toujours l'Afrique". Le Monde. Le Monde. March 19, 2019. Retrieved 14 May 2019.
^ Ratcliffe, Rebecca (May 24, 2018). "Mambas, medicine and one girl's race to survive Kenya's biting problem". The Guardian. The Guardian. Retrieved 14 May 2019.
^ "Striking Back: Snakebites Gain Global Attention". plos.org. May 8, 2018. Retrieved 14 May 2019.
^ Boseley, Sarah (20 Nov 2018). "Insulin shortage could affect 40 million people with type 2 diabetes". The Guardian. The Guardian. Retrieved 14 May 2019.
^ Lay, Kat (25 September 2018). "NHS paying too much for insulin". The Times. Retrieved 14 May 2019.
^ Ed Silverman, Ed (2018-03-20). "Pharma payments to docs in Europe are often inadequately reported or hard to find". STAT. Retrieved 14 May 2019.
^ Francesca Bruce, Francesca (1 February 2018). "Mandatory Joint Clinical Assessments For EU HTAs May Be 'Counterproductive'". Pink Sheet Pharma Intelligence. Retrieved 14 May 2019.
^ ^a ^b "Listing of HAI by the WHO as an official actor" (PDF). Retrieved 14 May 2019.
^ ^a ^b "HAI Website on its history". Retrieved 14 May 2019.
^ ^a ^b Gotham, Dzintars (2018). "Production costs and potential prices for biosimilars of human insulin and insulin analogues". BMJ Global Health. 3 (5): e000850. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000850. PMC 6157569. PMID 30271626. Retrieved 14 May 2019.
^ ^a ^b Basu, Sanjay; Yudkin, John S.; Kehlenbrink, Sylvia; Davies, Justine I.; Wild, Sarah H.; Lipska, Kasia J.; Sussman, Jeremy B.; Beran, David (2019). "Estimation of global insulin use for type 2 diabetes, 2018–30: A microsimulation analysis". The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology. 7 (1): 25–33. doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(18)30303-6. PMID 30470520. Retrieved 14 May 2019.
^ ^a ^b Fletcher, Elaine (16 May 2018). "TRIPS Flexibilities in High Demand". Health Policy Watch. Retrieved 14 May 2019.
^ Reich, Michael R. (1987). "Essential drugs: economics and politics in international health". Health policy. 8.1: 39–57. doi:10.1016/0168-8510(87)90129-1.
^ Walt G (1993). "WHO under stress: implications for health policy". Health Policy. 24 (2): 125–44. PMID 10126754.

- The BMJ article is about a study where the organization was one of the three sponsors. It is not about the organization. Diito about the one in the Lancet. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added a history section based on three books I found.^[1]^[2]^[3] I have ordered another book on Amazon by expedited shipping and hope it will arrive in time as it is a second hand book here in the US.^[4]--Akrasia25 (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- All 3 indicate very short discussions--one is a single page. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Chetley, Andrew (1990). A Healthy Business?: World Health and the Pharmaceutical Industry (1st ed.). pp. 71–73. ISBN 978-0862327354.
^ Silverman, Milton; Lydecker, Mia; Lee, Philip (1992). Bad Medicine: The Prescription Drug Industry in the Third World (1st ed.). Stanford University Press. pp. 185–188. ISBN 978-0804716697.
^ Lee, Kelley; Buse, Kent; Fustukian, Suzanne (2002). Health Policy in a Globalising World (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 91. ISBN 978-0521009430. Retrieved 15 May 2019.
^ Walt, Gill (1996). Health Policy: An Introduction to Process and Power. ISBN 978-1856492645.

Keep. There appear to be multiple references from very reputable sources.Rathfelder (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In fairness, I did help contribute toward the page. The page has been mostly rewritten since it was tagged as an Articles for deletion. The article was improved by addition of many new references and removal of some that were too closely associated with HAI. DGG brought up some valid concerns, which I think have been addressed and the article has been much improved by this process. Waughd (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)dwaugh[reply]

AfD withdrawn, Keep'' It's improved enough. It's no longer very promotional, and notability is at least borderline. I usually suggest deleting the combination of borderline notability AND strong promotionalism, butthis is no longer in that category. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @DGG: for the comments and for removing the AfD on the article. I learned a lot and will be more careful in article creation in future.--Akrasia25 (talk) 03:13, 20 May 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) 17:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Franklin Perkins School

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

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

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

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

Just because they call this a school doesn't make it a school. An institution of this kind lacks the societal position a school for the general population occupies. As such, it shouldn't be measured for notability as a general school is. Fails WP:NORG John from Idegon (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. John from Idegon (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know we're pretty loose with schools and notability here but this, while possibly being a "good cause" falls under WP:NORG as it's an organization and not a school in terms of Wikipedia's definition. I can find virtually nothing about this school that would satisfy WP:N.Praxidicae (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from routine personnel announcements, there was this Boston Globe piece, but it was mostly about Conroy rather than the organization: [6]. But even the passing mentions make it clear that this is not a school in Wikipedia terms. Search does not find the level of coverage necessary to pass WP:ORGCRIT. Bakazaka (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a school. Does not meet general notability criteria. Spyder212 (talk) 02:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm not an expert on schools, but I have some familiarity with special education, and this organization appears to include a private K-12 special education school with some accreditations. At the risk of making an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, I'll note that we have a number of articles on other special education establishments; see Category:Special_schools_in_the_United_States. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you just made an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument.

-The Gnome (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A lot of concerns! (Please note User:40.131.26.178 has now been blocked.) - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks to Bakazaka, I was able to use that Globe piece to reference one detail that was already in the article and add some information: the number of students, the fact it's no longer primarily residential, and the change in the population served. (I also added the background of the house.) It's a school that educates up to 12th grade and beyond, and has been written about. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:ORGCRITE. A gallant effort by our inclusionist colleague Yngvadottir but one article in a newspaper about the subject's chief administrator does not for Wikinotability make. As to the arguments about its "number of students" and the "population served," they're equally weak. The text was created and then curated by half a dozen kamikaze accounts, one of whom dares us by signing as "Clearly not here to contribute to an encyclopedia". They all might be one single person, though (hopefully). -The Gnome (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very much per The Gnome; pace the work that's been done, but it's not WP:HEY time (which not the Y's fault, but if the sources are absent, they're absent). ——SerialNumber54129 10:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but not per nom. I strongly object to the ableism in the idea that it is not a "proper" school just because the students have disabilities. It is by definition a school (amongst other things) because it presents a K-12 education curriculum, period. However, it is not a notable school, thus delete. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since my !vote above I've found and added a couple more sources, but I mainly came back to say substantially what Dodger67 says above regarding the "not a school" argument; specialty schools are schools, too, and I'd hate to think this one is counted less of a school because it now aims to return its students to conventional schools whenever possible. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I fully agree with Yngvadottir and Roger (Dodger67) as above. Beyond any -ism, such as ageism, this is a matter of elemementary human decency. -The Gnome (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all are pretty damn good at putting words into my mouth. Perhaps you should read it again. John from Idegon (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claim that the nomination engages in "ableism" misunderstands what is going on. We have carved out an unjustified exemption to the general notability guidelines for secondary schools. This is based on the assumption that due to a variety of factors if one searches hard enough they will find sourcing. This is more questionable than is claimed, but does not apply at all to schools that are not broad community institutions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 19 May 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Hyers

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

not significant enough to merit inclusion on Wikipedia MisterNoOne (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Conrad Hyers[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as already has coverage in multiple reliable sources in the article such as St Peters Herald, Kirkus Reviews, multiple academic journals. Also worldcat shows he has 3300 library holdings which is a strong sign of notability Atlantic306 (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a dozen or so published book reviews on multiple books, easily enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep, sails past WP:AUTHOR because multiple book reviews of multiple books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as obvious pass of WP:AUTHOR#3. Thanks to David Eppstein for putting in the work. Bakazaka (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:NAUTHOR. Papaursa (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NAUTHOR. Spyder212 (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per above and WP:SNOW Vizjim (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eppstein. --Tataral (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus seems clear, but I do want to ask -- is an obituary from a small-town newspaper and a handful of book reviews from academic journals enough to establish the subject is "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors"? MrNoOne
See WP:AUTHOR#3, which is the most relevant guideline here. Bakazaka (talk) 20:28, 15 May 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 The Ohio State University Libraries. Seems like consensus here is that the topic does not meet Wikipedia's particular definition of notability. Since a redirect target has been offered and the possibility stated to copy some material over, with no disagreement, redirect it is per WP:ATD. If someone wants to retarget the redirect or get rid of it anyway, WP:RFD is thereaway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Empirical Musicology Review

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "The page should not be deleted as the journal is impactful for the field of Computational Musicology and is hosted by an R1 research institution in the USA." There is no evidence of impact and being hosted by an institution, no matter how reputed, is no grounds for notability. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I turned up a few mentions of the journal: [7][8][9][10]. No judgment as yet. XOR'easter (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I saw these, but none of it goes beyond an in-passing mention. --Randykitty (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nothing I've found goes into depth or substance. I'd suggest redirecting to the publisher, but we don't seem to have an article on them. XOR'easter (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I noticed that about a dozen WP articles cite it. Having an article about the journal will allow readers to assess its value. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since when are citations in WP a criterium for notability? I could start publishing a journal, insert citations in some articles, and presto, my journal is notable?? Please provide a policy-based argument. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty: You could start publishing a journal, insert citations in some articles, and without an article on the journal, readers would have no way of assessing the quality of that journal. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And without any reliable sources or indexing in any selective database, all you would have to write an article about this hypothetical journal would be the information that the publisher puts online (unless you'd engage in some serious OR, of course). You seem to be arguing that any academic journal should be regarded as notable, a notion that has been rejected in AfD upon AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NJOURNALS. Creating The Ohio State University Libraries and merging there would be ideal, however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Huh. We have an article for the Billy Ireland Cartoon Library & Museum, which is affiliated with the OSU library system, but not the OSU library system itself. There are oodles of other articles about OSU (see {{Ohio State University}}), so there may be another redirect/merge target already about. XOR'easter (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to somewhere in the voluminous Category:Ohio State University or Category:Musicology, if a reasonable target can be found, and include a sentence or two there. Having a brief description of a journal that Wikipedia articles use as a reference would be helpful for readers, but that description doesn't have to be a stand-alone article. I think the mentions tallied above are substantial enough to warrant a, well, mention, but not enough for an entire article. XOR'easter (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that The Ohio State University Libraries exists now (thanks @Headbomb!). That would be a fine redirect target. XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The subject is legally recognised town, which can be verified through reliable sources. Hence WP:GEOLAND applies. (non-admin closure) —usernamekiran(talk) 18:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maharajapuram

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

I am still not convinced that it's notable. No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 15:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 15:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep -- WP:GEOLAND which is an English Wikipedia notability guideline states that populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Thousands of AfDs have been decided on the basis of this guideline and I am yet to come across a legally recognized place, that was deleted in contravention of this guideline. The nominator ought to put their efforts into something else, where they might be more productive. ∯WBG^converse 07:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
English Press trivially mentions the village over here, here, here....... ∯WBG^converse 07:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep -- WP:GEOLAND as noted by Winged Blades of Godric. There are plenty of places wayyyy smaller than this on the wiki. Cabayi (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Satisfies WP:GEOLAND. Smartyllama (talk) 17:40, 16 May 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) 15:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Wilson

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

Article appears to be an attempted promotion of her business, radio show, and book. Most of the article's sources are about her general line of work, and not her own accomplishments. No reliable media coverage can be found for her radio show; her book and private practice have some notice in professional newsletters (e.g. [11]). All other sources found are routine business listings. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this "Expert, Advocate and Speaker" as mere PROMO for a self-promoting owner of a home care agency. she wrote a How-to book about homecare, which sank with hardly a ripple. Fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:PROMOTION, WP:ORGIND Book looks like a vanity press publication. The referenced blog posts are generally fawning and promotional, e.g. including subject in a list with Oprah Winfrey and Katherine Graham. ogenstein (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete UNAMBIGUOUS advertisement. Trillfendi (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not WP:GNG and WP:PROMOTION Lubbad85 (☎) 23:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet GNG or any SNG (handwaves towards a couple) and has promotional aspects which are unencylopedic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:59, 17 May 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) 15:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Woking

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

Non-notable community radio station. The article sounds like a promotion for the station. Quite a few refs relating to the station nowbeing on DAB, but not sure this is enough. I could be wrong. I'm happy to be corrected. - Funky Snack (Talk) 08:26, 7 May 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 May 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The lack of notability for the article can be argued but I vote for borderline articles such as this to be kept to allow for further improvement, especially given that it contains several independent references. Rillington (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - three refs to the station's own website, one to a blog, one not working and one with a passing mention in a list - hardly the "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" required by WP:ORG - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 01:38, 20 May 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) 15:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rhosddu United Y.F.C.

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

Been uncited for years, but this is simply a non-notable youth club from Wales. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable youth football club, doesn't appear to have produced any superstars or had anything of note happen to the club. Seasider91 (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it takes something special for a youth club to be notable and there's no evidence of it here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looking through the news articles, the only one that has popped up is this one in 2018. Other than that, sources for this youth club is rare. Fails WP:N Matt294069 (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:29, 20 May 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 List of Gilligan's Island characters. Anything worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gilligan's Island Cast

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

There already exists List of Gilligan's Island characters where all the cast information is provided. The subject of that list is character instead of cast, though. If some information in this article is not given in that list, content can be merged. A redirect can be considered but I am not sure if it is suitable. Prod was declined by author. But I would sincerely suggest the author choose to work on and improve that list. 94rain ^Talk 10:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 10:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 10:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. Mccapra (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into either the suggested article or the main Gilligan's Island article. Bensci54 (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Gilligan's Island characters, there is nothing in this article that is worth merging. Ajf773 (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Gilligan's Island characters. This article is redundant to an already existing one. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as information is already there. Could merge if there is anything new to merge, but at the moment there isn't. Probably could also just be speedy'd via A10? WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the title may be used for a redirect but I just doubt whether it could be a suitable one. But I think for now there is consensus to redirect? --94rain ^Talk 12:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect given lack of things that could be merged. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article has no information that is not on existing cast list. A redirect would be my second choice.DiamondRemley39 (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gilligan's Island as this same cast list appears in the Gilligan's Island article - unnecessary duplicate content fork - I actually think a Delete is a better idea - Epinoia (talk) 01:19, 20 May 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) 15:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Chandrasekaran

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete Fails the criteria for notability. A technology executive hoping to up their profile. References are primarily announcements and are not considered for establishing notability. Fails WP:BLP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes the criteria for notability. Wall Street Journal and The Economic Times articles, which are GREAT verifiable sources have articles with his name in the title. He is an experienced and well known executive. Having not contributed to the article at all, still I can see from the first glance of the article that the references that the articles has are in accordance with the criteria of notability. Rest is the decision of the well experienced editors. Sentiments777 (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sock !vote deleted. Editor blocked by Berean Hunter. See block log here. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable facebook employee. Facebook engages in horrible lack of review of duplicate accounts to inflate their number of users and make them seem a bigger factor than they are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 19 May 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 Chumbawamba. Randykitty (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agit-Prop Records

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

Unsourced NCORP fail. Cannot find anything more in sourcing. Not to be confused wit the similarly named Agitprop! Records ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chumbawamba. Seems like a proper merge target, easy enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chumbawamba - not notable enough for a stand-alone article - does not meet WP:ORGSIG - therefore, Redirect - Epinoia (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acme Records

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

NCORP fail. Not to be confused with numerous Acme Records stores and other similarly named record labels. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this non-notable record label. Trillfendi (talk) 17:25, 7 May 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) 15:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

100% Records

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

NCORP fail. Tagged for sourcing since 2015. Cannot find adequate RS in a search. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the company. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. - Funky Snack (Talk) 20:22, 14 May 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) 15:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valea Făgetului River (Misir)

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

The article is probably a hoax. The river does not exist on maps or in its vicinity. Apart from that, it has no information other than it exists. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 04:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have spent a long time looking into this river and see no existence of it being real. I a valley with this name but the two closest rivers were named Raul Aries and Mures who share a Romanian Wikipedia article [12] and don't seem to mention this place. Following up the chain of articles starting with the article proper leads me to the Crișul Repede which looks to be in a whole different part of the country than the valley. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is a very small river indeed. I have found it on one map: https://bihor-county.map2web.eu/. It is about 4 km south of the village Șuncuiuș and 2-3 km northeast of Zece Hotare, around 46°54′40″N 22°31′01″E / 46.911°N 22.517°E / 46.911; 22.517. From what I see there it may be 3 km long. I don't think it's notable, that's why I redirected it to the river it flows into, Misir (which was reverted by an anonymus). Markussep ^Talk 07:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's something - thanks! I couldn't verify whether it even existed either. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm not sure this is a useful redirect but redirects are cheap so no big deal. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not a hoax per User:Markussep, but redirect to Misir anyway, ditto. – John M Wolfson (talk | contribs) 21:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ... every river on earth is notable. 77.13.19.9 (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. From WP:GEOLAND, Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river. (Emphasis mine.) As such, we should describe this in the article of the Misir since it doesn't have enough information for its own article. – John M Wolfson (talk | contribs) 02:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"We" should stop using "we" in discussions, when posting opinions. 77.13.19.9 (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's an accepted guideline, not an opinion. Markussep ^Talk 08:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He was referring to the statement by John M Wolfson, not to the guideline. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 20:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was still a bit insolent and wiseacre-y, IMO. In any event I still think we should redirect per my earlier statement. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Misir, for reasons above (i note that the Romanian WP has an article on Valea Făgetului, Alba only, and its around 80miles away from this location). Coolabahapple (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would say Redirect, but the Misir article does not mention Valea Făgetului River - does not meet WP:GEOLAND guideline "Named natural features" which requires verifiable sources - the article doesn't even give geographical coordinates - One sentence does not an article make - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It does mention Valea Făgetului, in the infobox. That's not much, I know. BTW WP:1S is an essay (which I don't quite agree with), not a guideline. Markussep ^Talk 07:20, 20 May 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 Aztlán. Any mergeable content is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Aztlán

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

This article seems to lack notability and is poorly sourced. Potentially merge information with the larger topic of Aztlán Garuda28 (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have, because I haven't done the work yet and may not get round to it before this discussion is closed, no comment about whether this should be kept as a separate article, but if it is merged then I would suggest that Chicano Movement might be a better target. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Aztlán per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 09:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the sourced content to Chicano Movement, as this flag is a relatively recent invention stemming from that movement and should properly be merged to that main article, rather than to a subsection like Aztlán#Use by the Chicano movement that has a note to see the main article anyway. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge to where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:26, 14 May 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) 15:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Hamilton (author)

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

Author, heavily promotional article with a list of their book titles but a distinct lack of secondary sourcing to indicate WP:BLPN. Created years back by a WP:SPA, possibly WP:COI too.

Today it appeared (and why I was influenced to AfD it) as a link from Frome, where it's dubious per WP:UNDUE, see [13] Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ there are sources: "STONE ME Mysterious ‘secret Stonehenges’ of Britain that go back 10,000 years including burial chambers, hillforts and an axe factory. STONE ME Mysterious ‘secret Stonehenges’ of Britain that go back 10,000 years including burial chambers, hillforts and an axe factory...", but almost all of the hits in a gNews search [14] turn out to be articles Hamilton wrote, or travel articles excepting sections of one of his books, or things like The Guardian promoting its MasterChef series in which Hamilton appears. ~~What I can't find is SECONDARY coverage or published reviews of his books.~~ Feel free to ping me if you can, I'm always willing to change my opinion when presented with sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Hamilton and his brother and the authors of The Self-Sufficient-ish Bible, which "has received reviews from publications including Library Journal, Resource Magazine, and Publishers Weekly". All of the reviews are cited in the article on the book. MarkZusab (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Per feature coverage mentioned above and book reviews. Thanks, User:MarkZusab. Book is now bluelinked on page; page remains something of a Wild Ruin in desperate need of renovation. I just found and added a long feature story from the Bristol Post. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Self-Sufficient-ish Bible Andy Dingley (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i am a bit uncomfortable that an author is deemed notable for being known for one notable book, there are exceptions of course (covered under point 3. of WP:NAUTHOR - "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, ...") like Harper Lee (until recently:)) and To Kill a Mockingbird, but whenever an author article like this comes to afd, i am reminded of people who are known for one event, now if there were reviews of Hamilton's other works/indepth sources that discussed him that would different (sorry, the sources presently in the article don't cut it, although the BP one looks interesting), i will stay on the fence on this one, btw, i wouldn't mind a background section in the book article covering the two authors, well thats enough of coola's ramblings.....Coolabahapple (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to User:Coolabahapple's concerns, I ran a couple of quick searches and added some sources. While there are some book reviews, he gets coverage more often as a feature story: clambering though little-known ancient ruins, foraging wild plants for food, being a minor guru of the sulf-sufficiency (grow your own food) movement.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Potential, but currently not enough RS to support the article. Doesn't quite meet WP:AUTHOR. - Funky Snack (Talk) 20:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
revisiting this. One bluelinked book. 1 or 2 reviews of his other books, and a handful of feature and travel articles about him. But this thing is, these features , where he takes journalists on food foraging walks, or where a journalist writes about the three yeas he spent hiking around Britain's lesser-known ruins in an article focused on recommending which of the ruins in the book readers might want to go see, don't really contain SIGCOV of him.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:22, 15 May 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. No evidence has been presented that this is "one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene", apart from GOOGLEHITS. Randykitty (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heavens Connection

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

Less important music group fails WP:BAND. →Enock4seth ^(talk) 18:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can the nominator →Enock4seth please say what the reason is for proposing this deletion? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a means of promotion or a vanity publisher. Spam from the groups only current member. Part of a promo effort for Psalm 1, Christ Junkie aka Psalm 1, the christ junkie aka Psalm 1, the Christ Junkie aka Psalm 1 (the Christ Junkie). Article content is not supported by the sources. Claims of significance are not backed by sourcing. Sourcing is insufficient for GNG. 1,3,5 are mere name checks. 2 is PR. 4 is just a download site. Nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:BAND "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene" - article needs to be rewritten in an ecyclopedic style to remove promotional language such as, "Heavens Connection is set to empower the youth of today with God's Word and light" - Epinoia (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Epinoia--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Epinoia, is there any good sources out there that verify that extrodinary claim? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Search google for Ghanaian+Gospel+rap to find out... is not a large genre, making this group more notable.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Searching under those criteria doesn't bring up a single mention of this group, except on Wikipedia mirrors. Richard3120 (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS. What good source exists that verifies that extraordinary claim, keeping in mind that Ghanaian Gospel rap is not a notable style. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Simply no reliable sources found at all, which makes it difficult to believe that they are "one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene", as Epinoia claims, if there aren't any sources talking about them at all. Richard3120 (talk) 22:57, 16 May 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 would like to ask participants in AfD debates to keep their comments at a reasonable length. Admins really have not the time (nor usually the inclination) to go through dozens of external links. Please realize that to keep an article it is sufficient to give only a few good sources. I would encourage especially De-Stavness to familiarize them with WP:RS. Thanks. Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Graylog

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

A non-notable startup with little to no coverage in reliable independent sources. Nothing unique about it and does not compare to the industry leaders like Splunk(which basically does the same thing at a scale 100x). Daiyusha (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi let's not be too hasty with deleting this article, please. I have some information for you that I hope will change your mind.

1. ---> "A non-notable startup with little to no coverage in reliable independent sources" Graylog is consistently mentioned alongside Splunk and is reliably in the top 5-10 when discussing the top log management companies. A quick Google search will tell you that.

Look through some of these links, these sources below which are considered to be very reliable and independent.

https://www.comparitech.com/net-admin/log-management-tools/ - a company that openly admits it earns by linking to various softwares it "advertises". Not-independent
https://stackify.com/best-log-management-tools/ - This is a list of 51 logging tools, this is not an acceptable claim of notability even for companies like splunk.
https://www.infoworld.com/article/3063614/9-splunk-alternatives-for-log-analysis.html - Again a list of 9 Splunk alternatives, not considered significant coverage
https://dzone.com/articles/top-10-log-management-tools-1 - Again a list
https://www.infoworld.com/article/2885752/open-source-graylog-puts-splunk-on-notice.html - A significant mention, this one counts.
https://opensource.com/article/18/9/open-source-log-aggregation-tools - Not a reliable source, anyone can have a chance to contribute here.

2. ---> "Nothing unique about it" There are many unique aspects. I can add in an extra paragraph about why Graylog is unique if you think that will help improve the quality of the article. I don't this it is reasonable to request outright deletion over this, perhaps do you have a suggestion or constructive criticism on this?

3. ---> "does not compare to the industry leaders like Splunk(which basically does the same thing at a scale 100x)" - Sir, people are having this conversation all the time. DevOps teams, sysadmins & others are comparing Graylog to Splunk legitimately. For many businesses, they can't pay the high cost to have Splunk so they look to other more affordable options (open source or enterprise). Again, there are pros and cons to both, but there is nothing wrong with including a comparison if that conversation is already being had.

Here are links to notable reliable 3rd party sources where these comparisons are happening all the time:

https://www.gartner.com/reviews/market/security-information-event-management/compare/graylog-vs-splunk - This is a comparison tool, not an article. There are about 30 logging tools here and you can compare any permutation of those. Usually articles written by a person are accpeted.
https://devops.com/log-monitoring-and-analysis-comparing-elk-splunk-and-graylog/ - similar to opensource.com anyone can contribute. Thus not reliable.
https://www.trustradius.com/compare-products/graylog-vs-splunk-enterprise - Another comparison tools
https://stackshare.io/stackups/graylog-vs-logstash-vs-splunk-cloud - Comparison tool
https://www.itcentralstation.com/products/comparisons/graylog_vs_splunk - Comparison tool
https://www.slant.co/versus/963/965/~splunk_vs_graylog2 - Non-reliable site, comparison tool

Splunk is clearly the leader in the log management space, nobody disputes this. Just because Splunk happens to be the leader in the space doesn't mean Graylog should be banned from Wikipedia or make Graylog any less legitimate. You seem to be very concerned about mentioning Splunk in the article. Is there anything wrong with that?

I am asking for you to reconsider this deletion request and instead tell me where you think this article needs to be adjusted. This is a legitimate company that is well known in the log management space and deserves to be on Wikipedia.

Thank you I look forward to working with you and the other editors to make this article better. De-Stavness (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: People will have a discussion for about a week, and If people find sources that are supportive, your article stays. That said, there are a lot of problems with most sources you mentioned .I've marked the reason why they aren't reliable enough, Please don't be offended. Wikipedia usually asks for multiple independent, reliable sources for companies. Daiyusha (talk) 06:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I've put together another list of sources that I believe to be reliable and independent. I've included a mix of sources from education and governmental websites, to news sources, and to articles mentioning the company or product in a significant way. Graylog has international users/clients so some of the sources come from all around the globe.

Again there are more mentions and sources I am just trying to find what you consider legitimate. Please look these through and let me know what you think. Thank you.

In the news

Articles where Graylog is the focus

Education mentions

Goverment mentions

Award Graylog and Splunk Enterprise Security among Security Incident and Event Management Data Quadrant Gold Medalists

http://virtual-strategy.com/2018/08/30/software-reviews-names-graylog-and-splunk-enterprise-security-among/

Wikipedia pages already linking to Graylog --> (http://docs.graylog.org/en/latest/pages/gelf.html)

Graylog has been around since 2009 so there are a lot or sources I am just trying to find the ones you will consider to be the most important. Thank you and I am looking forward to the discussion.

De-Stavness (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was a solid independent/reliable article as well. Not a comparison article:

https://blogs.gartner.com/jonah-kowall/2015/01/27/cool-vendor-pick-graylog/

De-Stavness (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topic is notable and informative Germcrow (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage at Gartner and InfoWorld suggests coverage from multiple reliable independent secondary sources providing signficant coverage and thus meeting WP:NCORP requirements. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is largely promotional, WP:NOTPROMOTION - Graylog has not done anything unique, just a different version of existing services - does not meet WP:ORGSIG, the company has not "had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." - Epinoia (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my opinion, the topic meets the criteria. I removed the repeated sentence and I removed the part about "regularly attending" conferences as it is not relevant to the topic. I would like to see a little more information on the actual product with references. But as it is, it passes the criteria in WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per HighKing. Article seems to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article. The article observed WP:NCORP.Forest90 (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:24, 14 May 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 Revere, Massachusetts. Any content worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beachmont, Massachusetts

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

A neighborhood with no particular separate notability. Qwirkle (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Was Beachmont ever a separate village? Many neighborhoods of cities trace their origins to independent villages that were eventually annexed by a nearby city. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Revere, Massachusetts as a categorized {{R to related topic}}, as subject lacks non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Per WP:GEOLAND populated places without legal recognition such as subdivisions should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it, if a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources. Sam Sailor 07:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree if its not notable merging with Revere makes sense, assuming as Eastmain points out that is wasn't formerly a separate settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it an officially-recognized place like the Community areas in Chicago? If so, keep, but otherwise redirect to Revere per User:Sam Sailor. – John M Wolfson (talk | contribs) 23:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Revere, Massachusetts - not notable enough for a stand-alone article - does not meet WP:GNG - Epinoia (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NGEO and Eastmain's hypothetical above — it was once, in fact, a 'village' recognized as such in A Gazetteer of the State of Massachusetts (1890). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And also in the USGS' A Geographic Dictionary of Massachusetts (1894). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That’s village-as-neighborhood, not village-as-political-entity. Qwirkle (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the context, however, makes it clear that this was a legally recognized distinct place at the time, which is how I've understood WP:NGEO.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by הסרפד (talk • contribs) 04:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, what would make you say that? Qwirkle (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice finds of the two mentions, they are, howere, purely trivial. Sam Sailor 05:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shin Miyata

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

Notable: Fails GNG, ANYBIO, and all NMUSIC criteria. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:23, 14 May 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. Well, it seems like while there are many ... debatable sources here, there are also some sources that have gone uncontested and are claimed to support WP:GNG/WP:NEO (as pointed out by WP:NEXIST, even sources that aren't currently used in the article can establish notability). Some proposals for mergers and redirections have been made, not receiving enough support for a consensus in their favour. So keep, but if people still want a merger they can start a talk page discussion to that effect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Call-out culture

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Call-out culture (2nd nomination)

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

The article is about a neologism that has little or no usage in reliable sources. Not an established terminology. Not an encyclopedic subject. Cited sources are poor or do not support statements. Wikipedia is not a dictionary Bacondrum (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not canvasing, just hoping to get experienced and uninvolved editors opinions here. Literally pinging in the 7 editors with the most edits: @Ser Amantio di Nicolao, Koavf, Rich Farmbrough, BD2412, Materialscientist, Tom.Reding, and BrownHairedGirl: I don't believe this article belongs on wikipedia. It is poorly written , poorly cited, it is a neologism and wikipedia is not a dictionary. What do you lot think?. Bacondrum (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is about a neologism that has little or no usage in reliable sources. There are no reliable sources that mention the subject. Bacondrum (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination appears to be a failed WP:BEFORE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the pings in the nomination seem to be completely nonsensical at best and malicious/canvassing at worst. There is basically zero overlap with the editors listed at the xtools.wmflabs.org entry for the article. Why is that? - Paul^T+/_C 04:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note for context, the above paragraph was originally: Not canvasing, just hoping to get experienced and uninvolved editors opinions here as I don't believe this article belongs on wikipedia by any stretch of the imagination, it is not an established terminology. Not an encyclopedic subject. Cited sources are poor or do not support statements. Literally pinging in the 8 editors with the most edits: @Ser Amantio di Nicolao: @Koavf: @Rich Farmbrough: @BD2412: @Materialscientist: @Tom.Reding: @BrownHairedGirl: @Bearcat: What do you lot think?. - Paul^T+/_C 05:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sourced do exist, for example: Hearing Vocation Differently: Meaning, Purpose, and Identity in the Multi-Faith Academy , David Cunningham, Oxford University Press. pp. 46 ff. [15]E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, feel free to improve the article by adding reliable sources you find. Bacondrum (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but RENAME "Social media mob", a more common term for the same phenomenon (also known as "social media mobbing".) Good soruces do exist, including: Amanda Hess, New York Times, 2018 : https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/07/magazine/some-online-mobs-are-vicious-others-are-perfectly-rational.html].E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Op-eds are primary sources, this is a primary sources not a reliable source for statements of fact. Bacondrum (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an op-ed, article is labeled: "Amanda Hess is a critic at large for The New York Times," and, as you say, the opinions of notable literary critics like Amanda Hess can be used to build a page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Online shaming - Simply being a neologism is not sufficient reason to delete, it must be shown that it is only a neologism and not a notable topic worthy of a stand-alone Wiki article. Is this a notable phenomenon? Well, there certainly seem to be plenty of articles discussing it. For example this article defines it thus:

"The system of pseudo-peer-reviewing on Tumblr is called a “call-out culture,” where users will police the posts that they feel do not align with Tumblr’s need for inclusivity. “Call-out” culture can be positive in its system of checks and balances because it derails the spread of misinformation, but this policing is generally assumed to be negative due to the aggression from which “calling-out” stems. While “call-out” culture is a double-edged sword, it is ultimately a practice of consciousness-raising partly because of the publicity that stems from the arguments, but mostly because the internet is made into a forum for debate and education."

Undergraduate student essay. Not a reliable source. Bacondrum (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are other sources that give similar definitions and are enough to sustain notability (e.g., 1 2 3). My main concern is that Online shaming covers similar ground (although not the actual culture so maybe there's room for two articles). FOARP (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first two appear to be reliable sources, please feel free to improve the article using them, the last one is an op-ed and is thus unreliable in this context. Bacondrum (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoo, boy. I thought that this page was paltry, but Online shaming is even worse (no attempt to define or to source the term/concept; subheads without sources; long list of subheaded but non -bluelinked "examples") . It is also not a search term I had though of, although I had searched for an article on this topic just yesterday, and failed to find one. On the other hand, our article on Doxing is surprisingly good, proving that we could turn this into a good page. User:FOARP, do we discuss what to do with Online shaming there, here, or somewhere else?E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it is decided that merge is a better option than keep, then we can talk about what to merge this article to or whether other articles should be merged into this one. If Online shaming needs deleting then it should be AFD'd. Otherwise page quality issues are for the talk page. I think you're right that the problems with Online shaming seem worse than those for Call-out culture. There's also the related concept of Cyberbullying but again that seems a related, but not identical, phenomenon. FOARP (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't oppose keeping the page if it was significanty improved, when I first came across it the page was horrendous and virtually unintelligible, the current version is certainly "paltry", to put it mildly. As it stands the page should be deleted. Bacondrum (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree online shaming is a shocker of a page, but at least it contains some reliable, secondary sources and the secondary sources appear to be authored by people with relevant expertise. Bacondrum (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As was explained to Bacondrum in the article's talk page, despite there being no one clear definition of what it is, there are plenty of reliable sources talking about it, and each defines it more or less similarly. Alex.osheter (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you possibly direct us to a single reliable source used in the article? (keeping in mind that an op-ed is not a reliable source for a neologism)Bacondrum (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The state of referencing in the article is not key to deciding whether the article should be deleted or not. There are multiple reliable sources discussing the concept of "Callout culture". For example, here, Dr. Ealasaid Munro, a lecturer in Communications, Media, and Culture at the University of Stirling, defines "Callout culture" as one "in which sexism or misogyny can be called out and challenged ... facilitat[ing] the creation of a global community of feminists who use the Internet both for discussion and activism" (quoted here). Similarly here, Prof. Michael Berube, a Professor of Literature at Penn State University, states that "In so- cial media, what is known as “callout culture” and “ally theater” (in which people demonstrate their bona fides as allies of a vulnerable population) often produces a swell of online outrage that demands that a post or a tweet be taken down or deleted". There are other such references easily findable through a GScholar search and otherwise, and other references are already provided above. It does not matter that these references are not yet included in the article. FOARP (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not mine or any other editors job to find citations to back other editors assertions. If you find reliable sources and you can improve the article then by all means, do it. As it stood and as it currently stands the article is not encyclopedic, cites sources that are poor, inappropriate and\or do not support statements. I personally had never heard of "callout culture” till I came across the Call-out culture link in a see also section. I'd never heard of “ally theater" at all until now. Bacondrum (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is the nominator's job to confirm whether a page should be deleted before nominating it. No, it does not matter that the references are not yet included in the article. No, it does not matter that you've never heard of it. FOARP (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not an established terminology. Not an encyclopedic subject. Cited sources are poor or do not support statements. I found no sources, I can't possibly know of them all. Improve the article. if you know better, do better. Bacondrum (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's some serious "Didn't hear that" going on here. How much more of an WP:RS do you get than scholarly articles by established academics in reputable journals? Again, the present state of the article doesn't matter for AFD - it's the possible state that matters. FOARP (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary I heard you, I searched for sources in good faith, it is you who is not listing: I found no sources (and I spent a good amount of my precious time doing so), I couldn't find a single article or paper that even mentioned the term. I can't possibly know of all papers or articles in existence. If you found a quality source, improve the article and it may no longer warrant deletion. Improve the article. If you know better, do better. Or perhaps you are here pushing the term? I dunno? All I know is that I came to read an article and it was very hard to make sense of, pretty much a POV, right-wing biased rant about how terrible feminists are and was structured like a dogs breakfast, I tried to improve it, but found all citations were op-eds, it's a neologism and doesn't belong here as far as I can see, happy to be proved wrong. Bacondrum (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is not perfect but has a lot of good references from reliable sources. The AFD nomination is misguided. Deleting it wipes out an enormous amount of excellent work on an important topic; most of the work that has been done on this article is completely in keeping with the various Wikipedia standards for encyclopedic content and reliable sources. DeRossitt (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This nomination seems to be in bad faith. There were a great many more sources (86) before Bacondrum began to slice up the article. Yes, it was in bad shape as it was in the process of merging in cancel culture, but there was extensive sourcing from a large number of reliable sources (including many prominent authors and publications) that were summarily removed by Bacondrum prior to listing the article here. I understand the intent behind the edits and in some ways the article had definitely grown too large and lost focus, but to suggest the term(s) have little or no usage in reliable sources is bunk. I also agree that there are a number of closely related terms all about the same or extremely similar terms/phrases like Milkshake Duck, online shaming, public shaming, cyberbullying, mobbing, mob justice, online boycott, outrage culture, and/or outrage porn (though I'm sure there are others out there as well) and, in theory, a single article encompassing all of these terms could suffice. (Indeed that was the point of merging cancel culture and call-out culture.) Until such a time as that centralized article about the general phenomenon is created, keeping this article is a fair outcome and deletion serves no purpose. At the very least it should be redirected to one of the similar terms/phrases listed above. - Paul^T+/_C 03:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made the nomination in good faith, and you should assume as much. Poor form. Care to point out a reliable source in the version as it was? It's a neologism and wikipedia is not a dictionary, the article also lacked even a single reliable citation. Bacondrum (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are several, but the first one I saw (that has since been removed) is: Danuta Walters, Suzanna (5 May 2017). "Academe's Poisonous Call-Out Culture". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 21 October 2017. Another (that is still present) is: Friedersdorf, Conor (2017-05-08). "The Destructiveness of Call-Out Culture on Campus". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2019-05-14. I stand by my point: to suggest the term(s) have "little or no usage in reliable sources" is bunk. As is your assertion that the article also lacked even a single reliable citation. Articles by Suzanna Danuta Walters in The Chronicle of Higher Education and Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic both easily qualify as reliable secondary sources for a neologism (not to mention the subsequent sources that others have identified above), and that was just in the opening paragraph of the first merged version of the article that I linked to above. - Paul^T+/_C 04:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC) Also, removing 95% of an article and then saying it lacks sources in an AfD is pretty egregious. - Paul^T+/_C 04:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC) Also also, doing stuff like this is a bad idea. Do not change your statements after people have already responded to them per WP:REDACTED. - Paul^T+/_C 05:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not reliable sources for a neologism. They are op-eds, primary sources. Bacondrum (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also also, "a single article encompassing all of these terms could suffice. (Indeed that was the point of merging cancel culture and call-out culture.) Until such a time as that centralized article about the general phenomenon"... you had it right the first time, it is a term, not a phenomena, a phenomena is an event or an occurrence...this is a big part of the problem with this article, the subject is not being clearly defined and calling it a phenomena is misleading. Calling a term a phenomenon is clearly pushing the term and biased in it's presentation of said term. Entirely cited using op-eds, it is therefor 100% POV.~~Bacondrum (talk) 09:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs) 04:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Stop editing comments after others have replied per WP:REDACTED. Changing the time is not apropriate. If you don't know how to fix something, ask how to fix it. Don't make it worse. - Paul^T+/_C 15:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly (1), you are 100% mistaken about The Atlantic: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 240#Is Conor Friedersdorf and the Atlantic a Reliable Source?. (And, in fairness, I was mistaken about the The Chronicle of Higher Education article being a secondary source, as it is from The Chronicle Review, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a RS: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 117#The Chronicle of Higher Education. It just happens to be a primary source in this case.) Regardless, as established by many other editors here, there are reliable (primary and secondary) sources for the article. Furthermore, just because a source is a primary source does not mean it needs to be summarily removed from the article.

Secondly (2), call-out culture, cancel culture and outrage culture are all terms (each one being an individual "term") that describe the same/a very similar type of behavior or phenomenon. There are a series of similar terms/articles (inclusive of the three above) that each describe similar behaviors/phenomena: e.g. outrage porn/outrage media/outrage journalism, Milkshake Duck, public shaming, online shaming, online boycott, cyberbullying, mobbing, mob justice, moral panic, and likely others. I don't know how you managed to lose sight of that in what I wrote. I thought it was fairly clear.

Regarding some kind of merger (3), WP:NEO states: In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title. In this case there are a great many "short-hand term[s]" all describing very similar things. I would support some kind of merged page with "a descriptive phrase in plain English" that encompasses the described phenomena (across more than just the "culture" terms) generally, but I don't think this is the proper venue for hashing that kind of thing out.

Finally (4), I'd like to kindly ask you to stop your disruptive editing at the article in question. You are right at the WP:3RR threshold. (1 2 3 each restoring this addition of the {{neologism}} template.)

P.S. Why was this AfD listed as the 2nd nomination. I can't find the 1st one. Does it exist? - Paul^T+/_C 08:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Conor Friedersdorf and the Atlantic a Reliable Source?" not as a primary source (op-ed) about a neologism. Not at all. Thanks for acknowledging the other source is not good enough, now we are making some progress, I hope you understand the rest of the citations used are also primary sources.

"Regardless, as established by many other editors here, there are reliable (primary and secondary) sources for the article" kindly point one out then. There are none as far as I can see, all op-eds, 100% of them.

"I thought it was fairly clear" not at all. You lot keep saying there are secondary sources, but there are none. If other editors have found some I'd ask them to improve the article.

"I would support some kind of merged page" I'd possibly support the term being mentioned on a page about social media terms more broadly...I might not oppose this page as a stand alone if it can be demonstrated that the subject is encyclopedic, the page is edited into a well written, clear and reliably cited article, or it is demonstrated that it's more than just a passing fad or a term a handful of university activists or op-ed writers have used - remembering that Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

I've switched out the neologism template for the primary source template, it should not be removed until the issues have been addressed, namely the complete lack of secondary source, secondly the need to establish that this is an encyclopedic subject. I have no axe to grind here, the page is just nothing like an encyclopedic entry, primary sources are not reliable for this subject even if it can be demonstrated that it is encyclopedic. It absolutely needs to be improved or removed. I'm interested as to why editors who claim to have secondary sources have not improved the article, looks like pushing a particular view or the term itself to me. Bacondrum (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Why was this AfD listed as the 2nd nomination." I can't find it either, my mistake. I must have gotten mixed up with another article I was looking at or something. Bacondrum (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes happen to everyone (including myself as I noted above), but perhaps you should recognize that you have been making a lot of mistakes with this article and begin to self-reflect. My responses to your previous comments are below:

Para1: There is nothing wrong with using reliable primary sources in support of specific points in the article as long as they are properly attributed. You keep on removing these points simply because they are primary sources without any regard for their reliability. Please stop.

Para2: Here are several (and I'm sure there are more):

Bérubé, Michael (January 2018). "The Way We Review Now". Publications of the Modern Language Association of America. 133 (1): 132–138. Retrieved 15 May 2019.
Anderson, Dianna E. (2018). Problematic: How Toxic Callout Culture Is Destroying Feminism. University of Nebraska Press. p. 84. ISBN 1612349617. Retrieved 15 May 2019.
Munro, Ealasaid. "Feminism: A Fourth Wave?". SAGE Publishing. Retrieved 15 May 2019.

They have been pointed out to you multiple times but you just seem to ignore them. The fact that they exist and discuss the term is enough to satisfy WP:NEO, and therefore the article should be kept.

Para3: Stop twisting my words. The sources I listed above are already in the article and you keep asserting there are none. Furthermore, this does not mean that reliable primary sources are completely worthless on their own.

Para4: Well, lucky for everyone, we don't need to satisfy you in particular, especially since you are being disruptive.

Para5: This could be interpreted as a self-revert, except that it shows that you are continuing to edit disruptively. In fact, it was noted at this edit warring report that you have done this at this article in the past. Please stop and gain consenses for your edits if they are disputed going forward. - Paul^T+/_C 15:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is not a neologism when it is a mixture of very simple words. This meets WP:GNG, I found [16], the book Kill All Normies has a "culture war" perspective on this, and the British book Feminism: A Fourth Wave? discusses this. wumbolo ^^^ 13:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's exactly what an neologism is, a new term, often created by combining words. Bacondrum (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The argument editors above make is that his term passes WP:NEO E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's clearly a notable neologism discussed at length in multiple reliable sources. summoned by bot to the RfC, felt it was more appropriate to comment here _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Online shaming - The scope of this article is already covered by Online shaming. I don't think it warrants an entirely separate article. Kaldari (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am not sure what "111 user review" is supposed to mean but as noted by others citing e.g WP:SUSTAINED news coverage alone is not always enough to justify an article, and the consensus here leans into the direction that it is not enough in this case. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 East London mosque shooting

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

WP:NOTNEWS + not a killing (shooting blanks in front of the mosque. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. It's notable itself and in one day recorded 111 user review. Also it's not Blank Article. It's look like the article pay to a uncompleted terrorist attack in London city which the attacker left the scene.Forest90 (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Keep this has nothing to do with WP:NOTNEWS. Also the amount of killed people is not a reason for deletion and nothing in the article seems to suggest that there was a killing. The deletion should most likely to be about notability and it is based on whether there are extensive reports about the subject on reliable sources or not. The event seems notable and have got attention from newspapers and so passes WP:GNG (this is based on a quick check on google). The reason for the speedy keep is because the reason that was given by the nominator doesn't seem to be a good reason for the deletion so I think this article should be kept unless there is a good reason presented for the deletion.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the general principle I meant was from NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." WP:NEWSEVENT would have been more precise. Many crimes get coverage from multiple reliable sources but that does not mean all such are topics for an encyclopedia. WikiHannibal (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Complete local news story with no damage or anyone hurt. Nate • (chatter) 00:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has not been sustained and also fails News reports. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 01:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Delete. No deaths, no injuries, no lasting notability. WWGB (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Routine incident of someone goofing around with a blank-firing weapon in which nobody was hurt or injured. As parochial a story as it gets. ‑ Iridescent 08:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it was some bloke messing around shooting blanks, what's the point in making a wiki article about it? There's no deaths, no injuries, and hell, it didn't even make national news, maybe not even regional news. Nowhere near notable enough to be handed an article. Cheesy McGee (talk) 08:40, 17 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Air Flight 293

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

WP:GNG for one WP:NOTNEWS for another. Wikipedia is not a repository for articles on trivial everyday occurrences which have noe notability or lasting impact. Runway excursions are an everyday occurrence and would only become notable for other reasons like loss of life or a notable person being involved. Petebutt (talk) 08:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - WP:GNG easily met and demonstrated to be met. A lack of deaths is ≠ to a lack of notability, even though a presence of deaths adds to the case for notability. Aircraft is a hull loss. Mjroots (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Is it a hull loss? I'm not seeing that anywhere. If so, it should be added to the article and would probably sway me to keep, but I'm on the fence at the moment. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation Safety Network currently states "substantial damage". Given that the aircraft has been immersed in seawater and is 18 years old, it's almost certainly a constructive total loss. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found a reference that said the plane will be scrapped after the NTSB finishes its investigation and added it. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Substantial damage to hull, multiple injuries, and a rather unusual aircraft incident. This recent incident was an international news item , and there is some continuing coverage through 13 May (e.g. [17]). As we are unable, at this point point, to assess whether said coverage will be SUSTAINED, we should keep the article per WP:RAPID. Icewhiz (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regularly scheduled passenger airline flight crashes, resulting in ~~injuries and~~ a hull loss. (Injuries are described as minor). Meets WP:N with international news coverage including multiple non-trivial coverages on BBC [18] [19], Reuters [20] [21] NBC News [22] [23] CNN [24] [25]
Keep. As a result it is a hull loss which the aircraft overrun and fell to the river which is a bit different from other incidents. Triila73 (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:N is met, along with the WP:CONSENSUS standards that a scheduled airline crash resulting in a hull loss is something that we cover...which, honestly, Pete, you know this. C'mon. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, Keep Heavy keep, notable enough to have made significant news, PLUS the plane was written off. Had it either been a smaller aircraft and/or wasn't written off, it wouldn't deserve an article. Cheesy McGee (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Might result in changes in regulations and procedures as the plane had only one working thrust reverser and the crew requested to land on runway 10 with a tailwind rather then the planned runway 28 against the wind. Omega13a (talk) 22:28, 20 May 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarwan Ali Palejo

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

This is a recreation of Sarwan_Ali_Palijo (Only admin can create now). (Other likely related pages Asad Ali Palijo, Asad Ali Palejo.) Very likely created by LTA Asad_Ali_Palijo. A7 persistently removed by suspected socks (Behavior evidence from their user page edit) 94rain ^Talk 07:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 07:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 07:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Removing CSD template, to creating an article that fails WP:GNG. Currently AFD tag has been removed. I recommend speedy delete and SALTing. User should be blocked too. Lapablo (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: as A7 Ceethekreator (talk) 10:41, 14 May 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. While the keep arguments are a bit thin - it's usually useful if you actually show the sources - some of them have been shown and went uncontested. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mansfield Building Society

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

Small local business with four locations; does not meet WP:NCORP. Refs & ELs are all primary sources/directory listings. Unable to find significant in-depth coverage in RS. Searching finds many business-listings and at least one press-release, but no independent coverage. MB 14:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was established in 1869. There will certainly be plenty about it in printed material from the nineteenth century. Notability does not have to be known to Google.Rathfelder (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rathfelder and I are probably going to say here pretty much what we said a couple of months ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marsden Building Society. Mccapra (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note Two sources are listed here, "The Story of the Mansfield Building Society", Nottingham Observer, 12(94), 1964, [54]-[55] and "A Short History of the Mansfield Building Society", [Mansfield], [c.1957], 12 p. ----Pontificalibus 06:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Building Societies have played an important role in English life and there are plenty of sources going back a long time. I see no reason to delete this one or Marsden Building Society, which was not deleted at that discussion. --Bduke (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous discussions on building societies and points by editors above.Mccapra (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KiSel-10

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

I cannot see why this clinical trial is noteworthy. The refs are to stuff by the researchers and there is no reason given as to why it should be considered remarkable. TheLongTone (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a few media mentions, but there's nothing particularly notable about this clinical trial. Examples of other clinical trial articles: Category:Clinical trials by type Natureium (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Published in a peer-review, notable journal, the International Journal of Cardiology. This Google Scholar search says that it has been cited in 100 other articles. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've got six publications that are cited in 100 other articles. None of them are remotely notable. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is insufficient coverage of this clinical trial for it to meet WP:GNG. Many clinicals trials get mentioned a couple of times in the news, but that alone is not enough to establish notability. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article expands on a noteworthy aspect (see section 2.1) of the existing Wikipedia article about Coenzyme Q10, that aspect being the effect of Coenzyme Q10 on heart function. That section contains four lines and is far from comprehensive. As such, it leaves the reader with an incomplete picture of the extent of human knowledge on the subject. If this article about Coenzyme Q10 and heart function in senior citizens is accepted, then it will be possible to link from Wikipedia’s Coenzyme Q10 article to this more comprehensive article. There is too much information here to put it all into section 2.1 of the Wikipedia Coenzyme Q10 article. The presentation of the article is neutral. It is the reporting of facts without bias. The contents of the article are verifiable. All statements of fact are documented. From a bio-medical point of view, it is noteworthy. It is also noteworthy from the point of view of many senior citizens and many people with increased risk of heart disease. Morrillr (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially an argument for expanding the Coenzyme Q10 article, not for keeping this one.TheLongTone (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- The foremost reason for why this article is noteworthy and should remain on Wikipedia is that it addresses not only longevity but also health-related quality of life for senior citizens. People who encounter the term "KiSel-10" may want to look it up in Wikipedia to find a non-biased summary of the results from the study. Morrillr (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is one of thirteen a dozen clinical trials. No evidence that there is anything distinguishing this one from the dozens of trials run evey single month. --Randykitty (talk) 14:44, 21 May 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. But tag for maintenance Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cycleswap

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

Conflict of interest, full of irrelevant (non encyclopedic) material and dropping of unknown names. It could be relevant but the article should be completely rewritten. Phrases like Joran Iedema realized a great demand for rental bikes existed are completely inappropriate for the encyclopedia. — Zanaq (?) 17:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Argree with Zanaq that the article needs a complete rewrite, but it seems to satisfy WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Satisfies WP:GNG, but a rewrite is required.--PATH SLOPU 07:38, 14 May 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 Provinces of Thailand. Randykitty (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of capitals in Thailand

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

There is no such thing as the concept of a province "capital" in Thailand. Originally, this listed the towns/cities the provinces were named after (and which served as the seat of the provincial offices), but as the offices of some provinces have moved location, this has morphed into an WP:OR listing of municipalities in which the offices are located, labelling them as "capitals" where no reliable source does. It's absurd to say Ban Tom is the capital of Phayao Province and Bang Rin of Ranong. Paul_012 (talk) 05:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC) See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 14#Template:Capitals of provinces of Thailand. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 05:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 05:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, at least procedurally. For instance, searching "Phetchaburi" "capital" brings up a number of sources which cite it as a provincial capital. For instance, [26] lists several regional cities as capitals. The infobox for each province lists a capital as well. If we take the nom at face value, there's going to be a fair bit of cleanup required, but considering there's evidence of provincial "capital"s existing in English, I think this list is valid until otherwise shown. SportingFlyer T·C 06:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I expect all of them to be informal uses by sources which can't be considered reliable for supporting such claims, per WP:RSCONTEXT. In general settings, it wouldn't be unnatural to refer to the namesake town of each province as its capital, even if technically inaccurate. But can you find any source (that didn't copy the info from Wikipedia) that says Ayothaya, Ban Tom, Bang Rin, Chaeramae, Chai Sathan, Khelang Nakhon, Mai Khet, Non Nam Thaeng, Nong Pling, Sadiang, Sanam Chai, Sukhothai Thani, and Thanon Khat are the capitals of their respective provinces? --Paul_012 (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC) PS Yes, I expect a major clean-up operation for all provinces will be needed. These concerns were raised in previous discussions at Talk:Provinces of Thailand#Province capitals and Talk:List of capitals in Thailand#Untitled --Paul_012 (talk) 06:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It honestly looks incorrect/vandalised as opposed to non-notable. None of those cities/towns actually appear to be capitals of the province, if they exist at all. SportingFlyer T·C 06:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - They are the municipalities where the provincial halls are physically located, so no, not vandalised, but "updated". The problem is that there is no official designation of what constitutes a "capital", so following the most basic definition—the town or city where the province's seat of government is located—will inevitably constitute original research as seen here. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Honestly, I have no idea why this would be original research. The concept of a "provincial capital" is clearly noted in English-language sources over time, such as [27]. CNN, a reliable source, says the provincial capitals and provinces share names [28]. It's pretty clear this isn't actually a list of capitals, but I'd be shocked if there wasn't a list somewhere noting where all the provincial halls were, if not in the namesake city, which would also constitute renaming the article. SportingFlyer T·C 05:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Provinces of Thailand which already contains the capitals for each province. The rest of the content is unsourced and probably original research. Ajf773 (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirecting also seems a plausible solution; this list is redundant and, even if the information is retained, does not warrant a separate article. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has been indefinitely blocked and for quite-related reasons. The notability of the subject is not in doubt and the article can be subject to routine editorial processes as to weeding out the BLP issues. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 06:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Me Too movement (India)

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

The article contains strong WP:BLP concerns, the majority of the article is about specific allegations. If all of these BLP issues are rectified, there would be little meaningful content left on the article. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 05:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 06:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 06:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with rewrite: Article can be kept by fixing the BLP violations through rewriting.--PATH SLOPU 07:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with rewrite: I also agree with this. I think the movement itself was notable enough to happen in India when it did, and had notable enough social effects, to warrant keeping its own article. It happened nearly a year after the original Me Too movement in the west, independently and spontaneously, and so wasn't immediately tied to what happened in the west; also, it was seen as a groundbreaking social-shift in one of the largest and most conservative, hierarchical societies in the world. It was notable enough to warrant prominent worldly publications (CNN, BBC, etc) to publish articles specifically on it, and they treated it as its own movement. On a public level, it eventually introduced behavioral reforms in many industries (entertainment, journalism, education, etc) and prominent social figures were suddenly in a fearful position of having their indiscretions outed, which seemingly returned power to the 'victims' or 'average people' in a way the society had never seen before. A climate of 'healthy fear and restraint' was introduced to the workplace; It was one of the first real examples of the use of a social tool (the internet) to empower the disenfranchised and bring about a serious change (or at least notable social reflection) in mindset throughout that society. And its effects were far reaching; many industries, class levels, etc were affected and continue to be so.

So I think it's important to keep it as it is a valid and notable social movement, but edit any BLP concerns (within reason - as even in the original Me Too article, personal examples and names were used factually to illustrate points) as needed and make it read more professionally. Rush922(talk) 11:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentRush922 If the original article contains BLP issue that isn't grounds for this article to have it, I haven't seen the original article, if it has unsubstantiated claims that could cause libel issues for Wikipedia those claims should be challenged and removed. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 23:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am sympathetic to this nomination per WP:TNT but think that editors' time would be better spent re-working the article and addressing the BLP concerns (some listed here) rather than debating the subjects' notability, which is not really in doubt. Abecedare (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator has been indefinitely blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 15 May 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Copeland (mayor)

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NPOLITICIAN / WP:NBIO nor WP:GNG. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Mayor of the 4th biggest city in Kansas... but mayors are not-auto-notable. WP:POLOUTCOMES says "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors". Wellm is the 4th biggest city in Kansas a city of "at least regional prominence"? Debatable, but the current two-line stub and no indication of anything but local coverage/job blurb suggest there is nothing to warrant a separate article. My current suggestion is to ensure that the city he is a mayor in has a referenced list of mayors, and that's it - if all they'd get in their bio is 'he is a mayor... and he lives in his city', sorry, that's not enough. Ping me if better sources are found and more content can be added. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesnt meet WP:NPOLITICIAN as a mayor. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NPOLITICIAN clearly not met. There is no information of sources for anything other than his mayoral position. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 17:10, 14 May 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. Though this has somewhat low input, the points made by editors as to the notability of the subject would appear to support their arguments of keeping the article. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 14:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph O. Legaspi

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

Fails WP:BIO; lack of significant coverage by secondary sources. Blackguard 05:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Blackguard 05:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 06:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:NPOET, WP:GNG --PATH SLOPU 07:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it a conflict of interest if this article on the co-founder of Kundiman was written at a Kundiman-sponsored edit-a-thon (see [29])? Bakazaka (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

if the article is kept appropriate tags including COI at the top of the article may need to be placed. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:POET, works are "well known" ie. appearing in American Literary Review (here), Apogee (here), Crab Orchard Review (here (page 116)), Poetry (here), New England Review (here), his poetry has been reviewed/discussed in/by The Rumpus - ("The Queer Syllabus: Threshold by Joseph O. Legaspi"), Michigan Quarterly Review ("I Am What Is Missing: Our Stuff, Ourselves"), Asian American Writers' Workshop - ("Straddling Convention: The Erotic in Asian American Poetry"), Orion - ("Seven Poems for National Poetry Month"). Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:POET - is not "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" - is not "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" - has not "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" - work has not "won significant critical attention" - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editors need to be carefull not to re/misinterpret notability guidelines that have been developed by consensus over a number of years ie. "work has not "won significant critical attention"", that is not what the notability guideline no. 3 says, it states: "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" which is what i have provided above. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 19:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Collins (actor)

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

I can't find any significant coverage for this actor. His most significant role only appeared in 13 out of 106 episodes of Trailer Park Boys. Two of the sources are dead and the only one that still works is about his death. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. Mysticair667537 (talk) 04:11, 14 May 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 May 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion Mysticair667537 (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think all his credits add up to notability. No results in a search at The Chronicle=Herald, a Halifax newspaper, which is a little puzzling. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn After viewing his filmography on IMDb, I've changed my mind about nominating his article for deletion. I think his article can be expanded if we can find enough sources about him. Judging by the list of films and television shows he's appeared in, I believe he meets minimum WP:RS Mysticair667537 (talk) 16:09, 14 May 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Cheeran

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

Does not pass NPROF. Natureium (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This one-sentence "article" leaves much to be desired, but according to Google Scholar he is cited 2345 times.[30] --Tataral (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think his citation record is enough for a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. The reason I am giving this a weak keep rather than just a keep is that without better sources there is not much scope for expansion of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His two most cited papers are review articles - these tend to be highly cited because they are useful for introductions to papers, but are not really evidence of the author's personal impact on the field. He got his PhD nearly 20 years ago, and has an h-index of 20 to show for it. This is solid, but not in any way exceptional. He is the archetype of an "average professor". Polyharrisson (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on citation record (5 articles with 100+ citations). hroest 19:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep citation record satisfy NACADEMIC#1. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:58, 14 May 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. With the caveat that the producing company may be notable (per bd2412); if stuff from this page is needed to write a page on the company requests can be made on WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moomba (boat manufacturer)

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

Well merge really, and redirect. Seems to me not really notable in its worn right. Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: What makes this article less than notable? If this is altered, shouldn't we take out Ski Nautique (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ski_Nautique) for its lack of sources and its "advertising" tone? Regardless of that, how is this merged? Thanks. Pga48 (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, I have not looked at it, so lets look, nope this should not exist either, and I hope its gets nominated for AFD. But its existence is not a valid reason to keep this, two wrongs do not make a right.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Right then, thanks, mate. Pga48 (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps the reviews of the models of boats the company makes are enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:ORGCRITE, has not "been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - of the three references, two are to company websites and one is a product review; not enough for "multiple reliable secondary sources" - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Skier's Choice Boats and keep as a subsection of that article. The product may not be independently notable, but the manufacturer has substantial coverage in the industry. bd2412 T 01:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:40, 14 May 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abelhaleem Hasan Abdelraziq Ashqar

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

This subject fails the WP:BLP1E test. All sources indicate he was a minor figure in this event. ~~Technically, he passes WP:NPROF, but~~ it is impossible to write a NPOV article on this subject because there is nothing else that can be reliable sourced about him. ~~NPROF is a guideline and not a rule. It has exceptions and I believe this is one of them.~~ --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given that page includes an improperly formatted list of "Sources" (Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals,... ) this may well be the worst WP:BEFORE fail that I have ever seen.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not WP:FILIBUSTER. I did BEFORE but, unlike you, I was trying to write a WP:BLPBALANCED article. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as BLP1E. I am puzzled why the nom thinks the subject passes WP:Prof. Can he explain in which category? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
- I was under the false impression that all full professors met WP:NACADEMIC. I stand corrected. Thank you! --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP1E. nableezy - 06:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the page has a list of plausible links, most of which no longer work. Tracking one down I found: (Palestinian Puzzle; A Business Professor in Springfield Goes on Trial Today On U.S. Charges of Supporting Hamas. He Strongly Denies It.: [FINAL Edition] Mary Beth Sheridan - Washington Post Staff Writer. The Washington Post; Washington, D.C. [Washington, D.C]19 Oct 2006: B.1.], behingd a paywall. An open access copy available here: [31]. I suggest that editors invest a little time examining sources. Page asserts that he was convicted and sentenced to prison. But at this point, I am not even certain what name to search under, the article I did find does not use all four names. Let's make a good faith effort to untangle this puzzle.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A rather easy one, actually, once you get the right keywords for searching (which would be Ashqar+Virginia+Hamas, Ashqar+Virginia+President - loads and loads of news items, book hits and journal articles). The subject is clearly not a BLP1E, as he is a public figure who ran to replace Yasser Arafat as Palestinian Authority president (see - 2005 Palestinian presidential election) - and he got 2.76% of the vote (Hamas did not run officially - an outside US figure made this run possible). In depth Al-Jazeera profile from 2003. The electoral run was covered in Washington Post as well as elsewhere. The subsequent criminal case, which ended in a conviction and jail time, clearly meets WP:NCRIME with rather significant and sustained national and international level coverage: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. Coverage in this book. The criminal case itself definitely passes NCRIME (so even if this were a BLP1E - this would be a rename at best), however given that the subject here has been profiled and covered also in contexts other than the criminal case a standalone bio here makes sense. Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEYMANN KEEP. I have done a modest expand, source, using only a few of the available sources, which include a long profile in the Washington Post. And Note that subject was in the national news form 2004 - 2007, and that he was convicted and imprisoned.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you duplicated entire paragraphs multiple times? Ok ... nableezy - 16:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you only proved that it impossible to write a NPOV article about a living person based on the coverage available about him. The case is regarded as demonstrating the difficulty of convicting individuals who assist militants... and Although Ashqar was recorded discussing violent attacks... are each repeated three times. He was convicted for refusing to testify for crying out loud. Everything else he did was technically legal. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected duplication. thank you.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have copyedited the page which had several instances where the sources were misattributed to some other organization. I will assume good faith chalk that up to several mistakes. However, the article still relies almost entirely on this source. We have no idea if this article was retracted but it does not appear anywhere on The Washington Post website. This article still fails WP:BLP1E. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for your assertion that you corrected "the L.A. Times masked as the Chicago Tribune). What you did was miss the fact that this was a Chicago Tribune story that the Los Angeles Times also printed. And erase it. The Chicago Tribune should appear in the cite as the "Agency". My apologies if I misformatted it. I do at least try to credit the correct newspaper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WaPo article is easily accessed via proquest, where I read it. It is a detailed biographical profile of Ashqar: (Palestinian Puzzle; A Business Professor in Springfield Goes on Trial Today On U.S. Charges of Supporting Hamas. He Strongly Denies It.: [FINAL Edition],Mary Beth Sheridan - Washington Post Staff Writer. The Washington Post; Washington, D.C. [Washington, D.C]19 Oct 2006: B.1. ). Mary Beth Sheridan is still at WaPo, and she's on twitter, if you truly think I made this up go ahead and ask her if she wrote this 2006 profile.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is extensive coverage of his presidential bid (in Arabic as well) - we are at 2E at least, not 1E. If we were at 1E, the correct move would be to rename for the notable criminal case, but we aren't there.Icewhiz (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite them. That is exactly what is needed to prove notability, which I don't see at this time. People run for office all the time and that does not mean their candidacy is notable. Otherwise, this should be deleted. The person's notability is right now entirely inherited from the court case involving three people not just Ashqar. This page as been in violation of BLP for years.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post: Va. Man Certified as Candidate to Replace Arafat.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still inherited notability from concurrent criminal proceedings. If you read the article, it has little to do with the candidacy. His candidacy is a coatrack for The Washington Post to repurpose their previous coverage. Also note that Howard University is in Washington, D.C. Of course, the local paper latched on to this. See for example these sources which shows that his notability was inherited from the fact that he was accused of a crime when he ran for office. Separating his candidacy into a stub section shows desperation to keep this page no matter what. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashqar placed 8th, with 2.68% of the vote. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. It shows that the candidacy was covered in newspapers in Israel, Australia, Britain and the United States. The British, Israeli, and Aussie papers that I cited/read do not even mention the arrest.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Covered" or mentioned in passing? Without seeing the sources I cannot judge that he was not just listed among the 8 or more candidates. Can you quote from the sources you cited please? Assuming good faith, I am sure the subject was mentioned. But I have serious doubts that his candidacy was "covered" without also covering his concurrent criminal case. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also link to ProQuest so people with access can assess the sources not available elsewhere. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We enter BLP 3E with his prison hunger strikes. The first was in 1998, when he refused to testify against Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook in a New York Court.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In your desperation to keep the page, you have introduce so much unsourced material. I have also lost any ability to assume good faith in you since you don't link to the sources AND you add things not in sources when I locate them. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do this kind of sourcing for several articles a month that come to AfD poorly sourced, but that appear to me to be notable topics. Sometimes I do several a week. I do not feel "desperate" about this one. More like intrigued. What is unusual is to meet an editor so determined to challenge solid sourcing. Please remove the failed verification tags from the Reuters article about the 1998 prison fast that ran in the Washington Post and that is plainly visible in a Proquest Newspaper search. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you have previously used original research to filibuster deletions does not mean it was a good thing. I have pointed out many instances now of where you, I assume through lack skill, have introduced content that is not in the sources you cite. I give up, you have succeeded by WP:REFBOMB. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Place 4th is the presidential elections. We have multiple in-depthmsources for this subject spanning 2 decades.Icewhiz (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

e.g. - This Springer book - pages 279-280 - covering one of his hunger strikes.Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that we are at least at 3E - the case from 1998 - in which his hunger strike is widely covered, the case from 2003+ (with a second long hunger strike), and the presidential campaign. Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEYMANN thanks to E.M.Gregory and Icewhiz. The subject certainly meets WP:GNG, with significant, sustained coverage in independent reliable sources, including the New York Times, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, the BBC and a solid two paras in the book The grand jury: A tool to repress and jail activists. And that's only in English, apart from one source in Arabic - I expect that there would be a lot more. I hope that those who agreed with the WP:BLP1E nomination rationale, based on the state of the article at the time of nomination, will reconsider now it has been shown that coverage of the subject is about far more than a single event. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:00, 20 May 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.

[Trouw-1] Eveleens, Ilona (August 21, 2018). "Slangenbeten zijn een vergeten ziekte ten zuiden van de Sahara". de Verdieping Trouw. de Verdieping Trouw. Retrieved 14 May 2019.

[India-2] Chakraborty, Ajanta (February 23, 2019). "New WHO strategy aims to halve the global impact of snakebite". The Times of India. The Times of India. Retrieved 14 May 2019.

[stat_who-3] MCFARLING, USHA LEE (12 June 2017). "Snakebite finally makes a WHO list of top global health priorities". STAT. Retrieved 14 May 2019.

[fr_snake-4] "La morsure de serpent, un fléau oublié qui empoisonne toujours l'Afrique". Le Monde. Le Monde. March 19, 2019. Retrieved 14 May 2019.

[guard_kenya-5] Ratcliffe, Rebecca (May 24, 2018). "Mambas, medicine and one girl's race to survive Kenya's biting problem". The Guardian. The Guardian. Retrieved 14 May 2019.

[WHO-6] "Striking Back: Snakebites Gain Global Attention". plos.org. May 8, 2018. Retrieved 14 May 2019.

[Insulin_short-7] Boseley, Sarah (20 Nov 2018). "Insulin shortage could affect 40 million people with type 2 diabetes". The Guardian. The Guardian. Retrieved 14 May 2019.

[costs-8] Lay, Kat (25 September 2018). "NHS paying too much for insulin". The Times. Retrieved 14 May 2019.

[STAT-9] Ed Silverman, Ed (2018-03-20). "Pharma payments to docs in Europe are often inadequately reported or hard to find". STAT. Retrieved 14 May 2019.

[HTA_counter-10] Francesca Bruce, Francesca (1 February 2018). "Mandatory Joint Clinical Assessments For EU HTAs May Be 'Counterproductive'". Pink Sheet Pharma Intelligence. Retrieved 14 May 2019.

[WHO_actor-11] "Listing of HAI by the WHO as an official actor" (PDF). Retrieved 14 May 2019.

[hist-12] "HAI Website on its history". Retrieved 14 May 2019.

[BMJ-13] Gotham, Dzintars (2018). "Production costs and potential prices for biosimilars of human insulin and insulin analogues". BMJ Global Health. 3 (5): e000850. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000850. PMC 6157569. PMID 30271626. Retrieved 14 May 2019.

[lancet-14] Basu, Sanjay; Yudkin, John S.; Kehlenbrink, Sylvia; Davies, Justine I.; Wild, Sarah H.; Lipska, Kasia J.; Sussman, Jeremy B.; Beran, David (2019). "Estimation of global insulin use for type 2 diabetes, 2018–30: A microsimulation analysis". The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology. 7 (1): 25–33. doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(18)30303-6. PMID 30470520. Retrieved 14 May 2019.

[TRIPS-15] Fletcher, Elaine (16 May 2018). "TRIPS Flexibilities in High Demand". Health Policy Watch. Retrieved 14 May 2019.

[Reich_1987-16] Reich, Michael R. (1987). "Essential drugs: economics and politics in international health". Health policy. 8.1: 39–57. doi:10.1016/0168-8510(87)90129-1.

[pmid10126754-17] Walt G (1993). "WHO under stress: implications for health policy". Health Policy. 24 (2): 125–44. PMID 10126754.

[Chetley_book-18] Chetley, Andrew (1990). A Healthy Business?: World Health and the Pharmaceutical Industry (1st ed.). pp. 71–73. ISBN 978-0862327354.

[bad_medicine-19] Silverman, Milton; Lydecker, Mia; Lee, Philip (1992). Bad Medicine: The Prescription Drug Industry in the Third World (1st ed.). Stanford University Press. pp. 185–188. ISBN 978-0804716697.

[health-20] Lee, Kelley; Buse, Kent; Fustukian, Suzanne (2002). Health Policy in a Globalising World (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 91. ISBN 978-0521009430. Retrieved 15 May 2019.

[Intro_to_Power-21] Walt, Gill (1996). Health Policy: An Introduction to Process and Power. ISBN 978-1856492645.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]