Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 October	28 October >

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 keep. Clear consensus that additional sourcing was available and has been added (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honos

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

May not pass GNG since it has no sources. Also there are little to no hits on Google on the topic Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now fully revised with sources. P Aculeius (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to sources already in article, Google Books and Google Scholar search reveals further potential sources. Also note that at least one ancient temple to this god appears to be notable – the Temple of Honor and Virtue. SJK (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. No need to leave this one open. Srnec (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

İsmail Çipe

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify - definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, but he has frequently appeared on the bench for Galatasaray this year. Not out of the realm of possibility that he appears in the future to meet NFOOTY, so I think moving this page to draftspace should be the preferred outcome. 21.colinthompson (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails all criteria currently Spiderone 13:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass nfootie or gng. Szzuk (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. There really is not anything in the article to move to draft space. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2018 (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 Concordia University#Libraries, archives, and galleries. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery X

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

GNG fail. Unsourced since 2008; I do not see enough RS out there to sustain notability. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very little if any coverage in RS. It appears to be held in a student-run cafe. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a picture of the space. I did not realize that it is part of the cafe, which is an old trick by art students to get their CV's started: it does not sound like a cafe, but rather a gallery. Additionally, Cafe X seems to have closed.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A student gallery, where none of the artists who have exhibited there have received sufficient critical attention to warrant an Wikipedia article about them. I would take that as an indication of notability: a gallery showing notable artists. That's not the case here, and there is nothing that would meet the GNG. Vexations (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Concordia University#Faculty of Fine Arts. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concordia_University#Libraries,_archives,_and_galleries would be better. Vexations (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Café X is apparently gone (and with it the gallery) so if there's a redirect it would be for historical purposes.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of invited speakers at cryptology conferences

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

This topic may lack notability per the general notability guidelines. The article cites no sources; a Google search for potential sources returns many results that list notable speakers for individual cryptography conferences, but there is no coverage of the topic in general. Information about invited speakers would be more appropriate in the articles covering individual conferences (e.g. list the invited speakers of CRYPTO in the article CRYPTO). Dividing up the list like this would still provide this information, but without the notability concerns. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Firstly completely unsourced, secondly we're not a collection of indiscriminate information and third this fails WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is taking lists rather far for an on-line encyclopedia. Vorbee (talk) 09:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate and unsourced. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY, fails WP:LISTN. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a bit too indiscriminate to be useful as a resource for people looking for potentially notable cryptographers to create new articles about. XOR'easter (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inappropriate use of lists (WP:NOTDIRECTORY), unsourced and fairly trivial. Has anyone checked for 'List of caterers at cryptography conferences'? Nick Moyes (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wiki is not a directory FOARP (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this project does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Desheret

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

Non notable and non functioning online collection of items, apparently abandoned some time ago. Mccapra (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "non-functioning"? The website is still up and seems to function just fine. SpinningSpark 20:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- there’s very little content on it and it looks to me like it’s not being updated. Mccapra (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary: if it was once notable, it's notable. The website is (2018) working properly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, notability is not temporary, the problem is, this site never seems to have ever had any. It might make a useful EL somewhere else, but as a standalone page, it has to be delete. SpinningSpark 22:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All I can see about it on any independent source is that it's a website made by 3 students. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per everyone else. Couldn't find any independent RS mentioning this website. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pull back (disambiguation)

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

Orphaned redundant disambiguation page. All math uses are mentioned in the broad concept article pullback, and the only unrelated one can be added as a hatnote. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The main page performs the same navigational function as this page. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. I found a "pull-back", but I've added that to the existing hatnote in the main article. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are several articles with wikilinks under this disambiguation, so the disambiguation is serving a purpose. Vorbee (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've moved the partial matches to See also, leaving just the mathematical entries (which are already listed in the main page). If this page is kept, rename Pullback (disambiguation) since there are no "pull back"s. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a bog standard disambiguation page. Szzuk (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

see comment below. Szzuk (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 19:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Pullback, overwriting the article there now. It's inappropriate to have a broad-concept article there, as it's not a broad concept, but several concepts with the same name, none of which are particularly primary, so a dab page at "Pullback" is appropriate. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Pullback was formerly the disambiguation page but it appears ip editors changed it into an article that describes unrelated mathematical concepts. We need to delete this and return pullback to its proper usage. Szzuk (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BOLD I've just turned Pullback back into a disambiguation. I'm not bothered enough to revert if anyone is unhappy. Szzuk (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted your bold edit. The article as it stands may be unreadable to non-mathematicians, but these are really cases of the same general concept — see for example [1]. (This was not obvious to me as someone who knows some category theory, but next to none differential geometry — this article could use a rewrite.) Nowak Kowalski (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The mathematical concepts probably do have some inherent value so could possibly merge elsewhere but I don't think such a broad term as pullback should be used for this niche so I was essentially agreeing with Deacon Vorbis, anyway I will see what others think. Szzuk (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nowak Kowalski, how about - 1) move Pullback to Pullback (mathematics), 2) revert Pullback to the dab page for the generic term 3) delete Pull back (disambiguation). Szzuk (talk) 07:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pullback at its current title either as a set index article or actual normal article (not dab), because this is about related concepts rather than about disambiguating unrelated concepts with similar names. The relation between these related concepts is notable mathematically (recognizing this kind of commonality is exactly what category theory is for and there should be plenty of book sources for it). But delete Pull back (disambiguation) and do not make a separate dab article because all but one of the entries on the current dab fork are more or less the same mathematical concept (the exception is pullback motor) so having a separate dab would fail WP:2DABS. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mostly split between K/D votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there is only one keep vote for this article with most of the discussion about how to best use the pullback name space. Szzuk (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid DAB page even with current entries. There's also entries that are not there like Withdrawal (military) and others. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn in favour of a redirect. Bearcat (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sons of Utah Pioneers historic monuments

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

List of unclear utility, whose title does not actually correspond to its contents: the title claims that it's a list of monuments, but what's actually in the list is not the names of monuments but simply a tally of the number of monuments in each state that has some. And the only source provided here is the organization's own self-published website about itself, which doesn't constitute strong evidence that this system is notable enough for us to need this list at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to List of Sons and Daughters of Utah Pioneers historic monuments, which is where the page creator decided to keep working on this article. Or, @Bearcat: may instead want to bundle that page into this nomination, as the same argument may apply. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I didn't know about that article — I came across this one because it was misfiled in an overly general category that it didn't really belong in, but that other one wasn't filed alongside it. Since that page actually has at least some names of monuments in it, the potential deletion rationale in that case isn't entirely the same as it is here — it's still parked on the same primary source rather than citing reliable source coverage, but since part of the rationale for deleting this one is vitiated by that page it would need to be renominated for a new discussion rather than simply being bundled here. So I'm going to withdraw this and redirect it to there, without prejudice against a renomination of the target page if somebody else feels more strongly about that than I do. Bearcat (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution (game show)

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

Unbroadcast pilot, doesn't even have its own ukgameshows.com entry. Laun chba ller 20:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Matt14451 (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very promotional article for a show that never was. Much of the information is from an edit with diff summary Addition of the game's concept along with other information that I obtained when I went to watch the pilot episode be recorded in-person. I also added a photo that I had taken of the studio. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Non notable game show that fails WP:GNG only covered for the fact it never moved to a series order, while also having blatant promotional parts which violates WP:PROMO. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a one off show which was not really notable. Dunarc (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2018 (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 redirect to Carmyle#Primary schools. Primary schools are always redirected as per SCHOOLOUTCOMES so as there's not really any need for a discussion I'm BOLDLY redirecting (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carmyle Primary School

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

Non-notable primary school. Does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 27 October 2018 (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 there were some weak keep arguments, there were some good ones too.(non-admin closure) —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primetime Adventures

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

Fails GNG. For preceding 12 years article on a commercial product has had one non-RS source (something called "geekdo.com") which is now a dead link. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books) fails to find additional sources. Chetsford (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since no fresh source material has come to light since the article was posted.TH1980 (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple reviews meet NBOOK, and WP:N is also met by multiple Indie RPG awards and multiple citations of its influence in Designers & Dragons, Volume 4. The current state of the reference is irrelevant; AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Spurious nom. Newimpartial (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide evidence of "multiple reviews" in RS per our standard requirement that sources must be demonstrated, not just asserted? Also, I am unable to find an entry for this in "Designers & Dragons, Volume 4" - can you please provide a page number for verification? Chetsford (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Designers references are on pages 149, 179, 183, 254, and 290. Really, the indecx could be your friend. Newimpartial (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm not seeing it but - in any case - can you please provide evidence of "multiple reviews" in RS? Or was it just that one? Chetsford (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the professional and Reliably Sourced reviews is that by MJ Harnish at boardgamegeek. There are of ourselves others, just as when you open up your dead tree edition of Designers & Dragons, Volume 4, there is an index at the back. Except for the blind, there isn't anything you "couldn't see". Newimpartial (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from my inherent concerns that "boardgamegeek.com" meets the RS standards, the link you provided isn't a link to a review, nor does it mention the "Primetime Adventures" game, it's a link to "User Profile for MJ Harnish". With all due respect, you do - in fact - have to provide evidence that coverage exists, not just claim it exists. It can become exhausting for all involved to have to pry this information out of you. I don't mean to be annoying in continuing to remind you of the need to demonstrate sources, but since ferret also told you in the Erdor AfD "you didn't provide sources when asked so NEXIST wasn't met" I sense that there is a reasonable need to underscore this point. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford, please look at the link after "at", which is the review; the link before "at" gives the credentials of the author of the review.

And I would remind you that in this AfD and its parallel for The Mountain Witch, one of us is providing sources while the other seems unable or unwilling to read them. I'll let the closer here figure out which contribution is decisive. Newimpartial (talk)

Chetsford, please look at the link after "at", which is the review - Here's a screenshot [2] of the link [3] "after at" [4]. Anyway, it's become rather clear at this point this is another exercise in obfuscation and, I'm afraid, I don't have time this week to treat it so I'll leave this AfD to you. Best of luck. Chetsford (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link fixed above; it is [5]. I trust you will find it easier to read than Designers & Dragons Volume 4, which in spite of everything you have written about it, you do not seem even to have opened. Newimpartial (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a thread on a message forum. Forum threads, chat room logs, messages in bottles, etc. are not RS. Are there any RS for this product? Chetsford (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After opening the link, Chetsford, the best practice is actually to read the content. Here it is a self-published review by published expert MU Harnish. Per WP:SOURCES, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" which is precisely the case here, as demonstrated above.

Also,please don't be disingenuous. Designers & Dragons is a reliable source on this game, per your own RSN investigation on the subject, and the multiple citations of the game for its influence, as I noted above, and which you have seemngly failed to read, alleviate any concerns about "trivial mentions".

NBOOK is met, even without the Indie awards. Why not withdraw the nomination? Newimpartial (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, message boards are not RS. Per WP:SOURCES the expertise of an expert must, itself, be established through RS declaring that person an expert. Merely asserting someone is an expert does not establish their expertise. And, as has been repeatedly stated by others, NBOOK does not apply to instruction or rules manuals. Chetsford (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, Chetsford. For self-published sources, the venue is not what matters (and boardgamegeek is a respected venue). What matters in this case is the credentials of the reviewer - is it written by a recognized professional in the field. Which MJ Harnish is, which is why I posted his Wired CV above. Do try to keep up.

And no, Chetsford, no-one except yourself has yet stated that Hillfolk or Primetime Adventures are "instruction manuals" to which NBOOK does not apply. There are literally hundreds of AfDs resolved along contrary lines. Before presuming that your own word is dogma, may I suggest that you try an RfC? (Though given how you are consistently ignoring the clear consensus of your own RSN query on Designers & Dragons, I suppose it is too much to hope that you would actually listen to the community).

I would suggest that you actually read a book yourself before engaging in deletion domination, but that is clearly too much to ask for.Newimpartial (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Do try to keep up.", "I would suggest that you actually read a book yourself" - You have been previously asked by others to not use AfDs as a platform to launch into personal attacks against the intelligence of editors and have repeatedly pledged to stop doing so. I'd kindly ask you continue the good work you've demonstrated recently in calibrating your responses. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not doubt either your "intelligence" or your literacy, Chetsford. I do doubt your willingness to read either the subjects of the RPG articles or our sources about them, which is one of the factors that discourages me from responding generously to your requests for sources. But by all means, let us be civil about it, q.v. "instruction manuals", "messages in bottles", "Are there any RS for this product?" after asking for and receiving page references in Designers & Dragons, etc., not to mention your quite unCIVIL "exercise in obfuscation" comment. Let us indeed be CIVIL. 20:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

That's better. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Newimpartial in spirit and especially if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to List of role-playing games. BOZ (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Newimpartial. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable role playing game.[6] Capitals00 (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per our guidelines, notability is established by significant coverage. Mere proof that something exists is not proof of that thing's notability. Chetsford (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established when a academic publisher provides "significant coverage". Capitals00 (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, dude, there is no requirement for WP:ACADEMIC sourcing. Multiple, reliable sources are sufficient. And, note to Chetsford, significant coverage from multiple sources has been demonstrated here. Newimpartial (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such requirement but I was saying that if an academic publisher has provided enough coverage then the subject is obviously notable in addition to multiple other reliable sources. To treat it as "mere proof that something exists" is underestimation like Chetsford was doing. Capitals00 (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2018 (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 15:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Wallock

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. No coverage. scope_creep (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The best source is the LA Times story about a law suit brought by Wallock's parents against an insurance company that refused to pay for medical care he needed as an infant. He was born with heart defects, but this does not make him a notable person. His claim to notability is summarised itn citation #5 "20-Year-Old Open-Heart Surgery Survivor Found His Passion In Social Media Marketing, an interview by one of the many bloggers hosted by Forbes. Article Sourced almost exclusively to blog posts hosted by Forbes. Plus a blog post hosted by HuffPost. Article also cites a USA Today article which is a dead link; but I can't find the article and cannot, therefore, tell whether it is a reported piece. Fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As E.M.Gregory says, sources seem to be limited to promotional material, and there's not enough to be able to write a neutral article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:11, 4 November 2018 (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. In terms of actually justified !votes there is a clear consensus that the improved article (dour or not) is sufficiently sourced to pass notability (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hippo eats dwarf

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

Questionable notability. Also the story itself is unreferenced Openlydialectic (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was nominated for deletion in 2011 and was decided to be kept. -Kylelovesyou (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Can you provide a URL to the discussion, because there's no links on the article's talk page to previous deletion discussions. Openlydialectic (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was no AfD as far as I can see. It was nominated in 2009 for speedy deletion as a G3 (hoax) which was declined (an article about a hoax is not itself a hoax). It was also nominated in 2010 under A7 which is an equally inappropriate criterion. SpinningSpark 22:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Snopes source in the article gives a good account of the history (and much of it is currently missing from the article). Together with the fact that this has reappeared in "proper" newspapers in at least three bursts at different times and is the title of Boese's book, who also gives an account of its history, is enough to get it past GNG for me. SpinningSpark 16:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Hippos only eat dwarf vegetables SpinningSpark 16:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Comment. User:Kylelovesyou is the creator of the article and his comment above can likely be taken as a "keep", although that was not explicitly stated. SpinningSpark 16:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of urban legends, where there is already an entry for it. Deb (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of urban legends. By the way, did you know that hippos kill an average of 2,900 people a year? True fact. Carrite (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As well as split opinions, editors on either side (if Kylelovesyou is a de facto !vote) aren't sufficiently justifying their !votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:HEY, I added some WP:RS. Also, there was a 2006 book that took this hoax for its title. We could consider making this a page about the book. I added a few sources about that book, including book reviews. More sources are available in in news archives. Note that a topic does not have to be dour to be notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the massive improvements to the article. I find the story grim and tragic, and fail to see any humour in it. Dour it is, notable it is, and must be kept. XavierItzm (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Spinningspark has convinced me. Isingness (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2018 (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. Black Kite (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Smith (American football coach)

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

Altho a very accomplished high school coach, he doesn't meet WP:GNG or any WP:SNG John from Idegon (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete normally high school coaches aren't generating enough press to achieve WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. With such a common name as "Chuck Smith" it's difficult to find matches to articles using traditional online searches. I am unable to find anything pointing toward notability at this time, but if such articles were presented I would certainly change my position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Smith was recognized as a "Coach of the Year" in Kentucky on multiple occasions by multiple media organizations including the Associated Press, Louisville Courier-Journal, and the National Federation of State High School Associations. He is a future KHSAA (member association of the NFHS) Hall of Famer and one of the most successful coaches in the history of Kentucky. He was the first coach to accomplish winning 5 consecutive state championships, and he was a NCAA player and assistant coach at the University of Kentucky. He has links to the NFL as the former positional coach of 3 current NFL players. WildManKY (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no disrespect for the coach, but that (at least in my view) does not meet the threhhold of notability for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Perhaps an online sports almanac or another venue? Try another wiki. And if he generates enough press to surpass WP:GNG, bring it back! -- Again, if you have links to news articles, please post them. I'll change my position if warranted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - He could fall within WP:NCOLLATH as a "well-known assistant coach" who won an award presented by a national organization (NFHS) or as WP:NHSPHSATH as someone who has "received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage." I feel the USAToday validation of his achievements extends beyond local coverage because it does not specifically cover Kentucky high school sports. WildManKY (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Typically college assistant coaches are considered not notable, although there are exceptions through WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once you discount the prep sports sources as routine, he clearly fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 21:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that the Louisville Courier-Journal and the Lexington Herald-Leader (Kentucky.com), the two largest newspapers in Kentucky, an ABC affiliate (WTVQ), an NBC affiliate (LEX18), USAToday, and his NCAA coaching profile are merely "prep sports sources". WildManKY (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree with you. The Rivals article is a routine sports transactional article and arguably not independent. The only other article that doesn't discuss him in the prep sports context is the lex18.com article. The largest papers in any U.S. state will cover prep sports thoroughly. SportingFlyer talk 01:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A third relist usually isn't acceptable, and this is an already an old discussion. If anyone would like me to reverse the close, I will, but (including nomination), keep-delete votes are split. No consensus appears to be the best option. (non-admin closure) Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 00:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Codeforces

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

Some new references, but still fails WP:GNG. wumbolo ^^^ 16:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As you can see at Competitive programming Codeforces is one of the most used websites for competitive programming contests and training and there are a lot of similar websites which have way lower website traffic and have their own wikipedia article such as CodeChef, SPOJ, Topcoder, HackerEarth or UVa Online Judge. Jahoda97 (talk) 9:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Jahoda97 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Along with the above rational, I would add that Google News shows enough sources that confirms the software to be notable. Rzvas (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Most of the sources found are primary. Flooded with them hundreds 15:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a clear absence of consensus to delete, and a reasonable argument for notability of the institution based on size and reach. bd2412 T 03:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JMC Academy

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

Non-self-accrediting university that does not have in-depth coverage at reliable secondary sources. While tertiary-education providers are usually considered notable by default, Australia has many tiny private sector universities that are non-notable. Per arguments made at the previous AfD for this subject, self-accreditation is an important threshold for determining the notability of private universities in Australia in the absence of coverage in reliable sources, and a threshold that the JMC Academy does not clear. I was able to find this [7] strange article in the Sydney Morning Herald, which could potentially be considered in-depth coverage in a reliable source, except that the article is very strangely written, seems borderline promotional and does not have author attribution. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt nothing has changed since the last time it was delete any recreation should be reviewed via appropriate discussion. Gnan garra 10:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep accretted post secondary degree granting is a bright line for notability. All such institutions deserve an article. It is part of the public good. A Wikipedia page is one way for employers to check if a school listed on a resume is real or diploma mill. If we suspend the bright line we get into arguing case by case if this or that school is "important" enough for a page. We even accept pages on schools that are government approved but not operating yet so this nomination is out of order and against long standing practiceLegacypac (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the definition of self-accrediting, I suspect that the argument that this was a critical marker of legitimacy for Australian universities (as asserted in the previous AfD) may have been incorrect, although I may be misinterpreting this new text. If it is indeed the case that real, legitimate tertiary educational institutions in Australia are generally not self-accrediting, then I agree with the argument above and no longer am in favor of deletion. I'd appreciate it if someone with more expertise could confirm what the meaning (and importance) of "self-accrediting" is in Australia. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: Information on self-accreditation can be found here. It has to be granted by the Australian Government and when granted, as here, it shows a high level of trust in the institution by the Government education department. Just Chilling (talk)

Delete now as it was deleted then. We are, as a community, moving away from the inherent notability standard of schools. And that's a good thing. It's what makes us an encyclopedia. No significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject has been presented. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a recognised degree-awarding tertiary education institution.~~The fact that it self-accrediting shows that it has passed the necessary rigorous examination by the Australian education department~~ Kudos to the nominator for finding an in-depth source and their open-minded approach. There is another decent source, here. Looking across all the sources available, WP:ORG is clearly met. Further, reading the sources, this Academy plays an important role in creative industries education in this country. Finally, its opinions are quoted (and hence valued) in the media, for example, here by the HuffPost. Of course, it is not a good article that needs much editing and the removal of puffery but AFD is not cleanup and the need for cleanup is not a ground for deletion. Just Chilling (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not self-accrediting though. The confusion regarding that claim was as to what self-accreditation means (and whether it's important), but the sources for the article unambiguously state that the subject is not a self-accrediting school. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With 1800 students and three campuses it's clearly notable. The writing is promotional but that's reason to edit not delete. Ifnord (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - it's not an orphan, and does have three campuses. I fixed the logo and hatnoted for reference improvements. Coverage is virtually non-existent, but there are at least two paywalled passing mentions in the Australian press [[8]] (not the first one though - that's a sponsored ad). TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the History section is all awards, that needs to be more factual about their growth. If not, then it doesn't belong.--JAMillerKC (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good rationales above by Ifnord, and Just Chilling. --1l2l3k (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not the strongest of keeps but I think a definite one. There are multiple official government references. There are multiple referrals / recommendations by industry potential employer type organisations. Has a recognised over 30 years establishment with multiple campuses. There is sufficient WP:NEXIST to get it over the GNG line. Aoziwe (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Prakash (CEO, RPT Inc.)

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

Promotional autobiography of now blocked sockpuppet InternetPhilanthropist (talk · contribs) which he repeatedly created and moved to mainspace for promotion before he was caught and blocked. Non notable, lacks solid reliable sources reports –Ammarpad (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should be speedy deleted. FitIndia ^Talk 14:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely non-notable. The first source (Times of India) doesn't work, and the others are practically worthless. --Kbabej (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article's deletion should be given a snooze, as the article's editor is proving it notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:C28F:E59:C95F:2ECB:58E9:8F85 (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a WP:BLP without substantial WP:RS and should be deleted per WP:A7 So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2018 (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. Mkdw ^talk 01:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Garry

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

Subject fails WP:NACTOR; I have been unable to find any reliable sources. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article has no relaible sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no reliable sources. IMDB is not a valid source, and it is the only one on the article. --Kbabej (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No major roles, just minor voice roles. Not everyone working as an actor is notable. --Michig (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makati Diamond Residences

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

Nothing notable about the property. Previous AfD was a procedural keep (too many articles in a single nomination). Cabayi (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing notable about this building. Ajf773 (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment it is reported to be 106.83 m (350.49 ft) tall. I have held elsewhere that buildings >= 100 m should be deemed notable, worldwide. As an alternative to deletion, at worst should this redirect to a row for it in List of tallest buildings in the Philippines? --Doncram (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, that list cuts off at #46, a spot shared by 7 buildings, which are 150m tall. This building doesn't make the cut for an entry on that list. Cabayi (talk) 09:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on current sourcing to a directory and a primary source. Height is not inherently notable, but you would expect to see secondary sources for tall buildings. If this is one of them I haven't seen it yet. SportingFlyer talk 01:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with nom. 28 story building, WP:MILL. MB 04:26, 1 November 2018 (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 Redirected to Suwon Samsung Bluewings. Jac16888 ^Talk 11:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Suwon Samsung Bluewings season

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

No content displayed with a large hide content and the original version is mainly written by korean language. Hhkohh (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Donkor

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

Footballer who fails GNG and WP:NFOOTY. BlameRuiner (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. 21.colinthompson (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and NFOOTY. Govvy (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Helper SHIBETA

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

Non notable Manga declined here Draft:Helper SHIBETA twice. Theroadislong (talk) 09:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a self published manga with no independent sources. I declined the Draft and have also clearly advised the author about the issues surrounding this article and its lack of suitability for Wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a self-published manga. No sign of reliable third-party coverage. Pichpich (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject does not have significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, so it does not meet WP:GNG. Bakazaka (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that, once stage performances are included, there is sufficient sourcing to demonstrate notability (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Di Botcher

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Unref blp. Boleyn (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. She has had a long career with roles in many significant shows and films and is now playing a relatively significant role in one of Britain's longest-running and best-known drama series. I think she just about makes it over the line. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A quick search shows that she is mentioned positively by name in reviews in national UK newspapers of several plays and musicals she appeared in. In fact, her stage appearances are not even mentioned in this article! RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added a table of some of her stage performances, with references - 21 roles in plays and musicals over 30 years, including in the West End of London. I will add more quotes from reviews. I think the main reason the subject of this article did not appear notable is that the information was (likely) copied from IMDB, and hence missed a large part of her career. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Big in Wales. Satisfies WP:GNG: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. --Michig (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2018 (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. Michig (talk) 07:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mamoudou Gassama

AfDs for this article:

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

lack of consensus on May 2017 NAH 16:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, CAPTAIN RAJU. NAH 22:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. I see no need for a second debate. There is a lasting notoriety of this event in France. The trial of the 4 years old's father who left his kid alone was publicized in media outlets recently.--Kimdime (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ per WP:BLP1E and the deletion discussion on the French Wikipedia is currently leaning towards delete with 8 for keep, 14 for delete, and 4 neutral. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 08:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the French process is something you are willing to take in account in your vote, I'd say you should wait before making up your mind. It's far from certain that the trends will remain the same at the end of the consultation, it may even happen that the article is kept if there is a weak majority for the deletion.--Kimdime (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can count me as "weak keep" if it turns out to be kept in French. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 08:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a lasting notoriety of this event in France Mike Coppolano (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The french AfD finishes on November 3.

Keep He was the recipient of a BET Award ([18]) which, with the wide coverage in the international press (Teen vogue, BBC) make him pass WP:GNG. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he got a medal for courage, wide coverage, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seba~enwiki (talk • contribs)
Weak keep currently 33 for keep and 23 for delete on the French AFD. French article is about twice as long so this may still be improved even if he does nothing else notable in his life. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Received substantial worldwide news coverage = GNG. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:35, 3 November 2018 (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. Essentially, the additional sources found by Michig were not challenged. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Paba

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

An advertorially-toned page on a nn individual. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Bkleinberg currently indef-blocked for abusing multiple accounts; likely UPE based on behavioural evidence. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HOTTIE Delete: Although she is mentioned in (mostly Spanish) press, subject comes accross as self-proclaimed expert with no concrete evidence to support this claim. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or nor she is an expert isn't really the issue here, it has no bearing on satisfying WP:GNG. --Michig (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What a stupid joke. This isn't beauty pageant. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just stating 'non-notable X' as a deletion argument in every AfD isn't likely to carry much weight with closing administrators. --Michig (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Some decent coverage in multiple sources, makes this at least borderline for GNG, e.g. [19], [20], [21]. --Michig (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Michig, and quite easily found the same sources and a few others - note that El Diario NY is a New York based Spanish-language news sources, so not local to her home country or place of business. This is another profile of her, focusing on her work with cancer patients: [22], in an English-language website about Latino entertainment and lifestyle. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above sources which indicate that WP:GNG is met. Assuming good faith that these sources are in RS and a prima facie look seems to support that. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:03, 4 November 2018 (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 PewDiePie#Discography. Consensus is that this doesn't meet WP:N. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 12:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bitch Lasagna

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

This doesn't seem to be notable. I don't see substantial news coverage, and it doesn't seem to have charted.—{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 04:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG [23] [24] [25] AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 08:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AlessandroTiandelli333 Um, the third source you linked is from 2014, and doesn't mention the song. Did you mean to link something else? The first source is a fairly short bit from a video-gaming gossip blog. The second source is mostly just a copy of the lyrics.—{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 12:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, none of these 3 sources would help towards meeting the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to PewDiePie#Discography. The article was originally a redirect to PewDiePie anyway. – Vistadan 15:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were probably better off with your first choice of “Redirect”. The article is extremely short and largely unsourced. There’s nothing in particular worth merging over... Sergecross73 msg me 16:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, I'll go back to my first choice of Redirect. – Vistadan 16:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Viable search term (and...unlikely to ever refer to anything else) but not enough (or any found as of writing this) third party reliable sources that discuss it in significant detail. Failure of the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PewDiePie#Discography per above. The song is already mentioned in the discography section and in the formatted shows and further controversies (2018–present) section. 344917661X (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with PewDiePie#Discography per above. AwesumIndustrys (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds are you advocating either? It’s WP:NOTAVOTE - you need a reason to back your stance. There currently aren’t the reliable sources to advocate for either outcome you’re proposing. Sergecross73 msg me 01:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The song is already mentioned under PewDiePie#Discography, so I think a redirect would be best. 344917661X (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Tomorrow I will write an article about PewDiePie vs T-Series, which will be a valid merge target.wumbolo ^^^ 20:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wumbolo: Good idea! That's great thinking there, as coming up with a solution like that shows great initiative, as it is much better than just a regular redirect! Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t. That would likely be deleted or redirected too, and if you’d read the discussion, you’d we don’t need a redirect target, we already have consensus for one that already exists. Sergecross73 msg me 22:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That won't be redirected per WP:XY, and is actually a very lengthy event, with coverage from several months ago and it's every day in the news at the moment.wumbolo ^^^ 08:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

XY will only prevent redirection, not deletion. It will just end up being deleted. There’s very little precedent for “grudge” articles like you’re proposing. Just write it as a subsection at either of their existing articles if there really is reliable sourcing out there. The lack of coverage on this song makes me rather doubtful though. Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In-depth coverage in Polygon, August, Vice, August, The Verge, August, The Verge, September, Newsweek, September. Recent coverage: The Independent, The billboards, The Independent, The Independent, Plenty of reactions to it, Quartz wumbolo ^^^ 15:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They’re all just saying the same thing: Pewdiepie is most popular, but T-series is on track to beat him. That’s enough to source a sentence or two, not enough to warrant the construction of another entire article. Please take this discussion to a Wikiproject or something, it’s getting in the way of the discussion. There’s already a viable redirect target, so the outcome of this AFD is not dependent on the existence of this I’ll-conceived article. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG [26] [27] [28]. Indeed.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ - How can you say that? Those are the same sources presented and discounted above. What makes these sources reliable sources? How can you possibly suggest that your third source, an article published in 2014 - 4 years prior to the subjects existence, somehow helps prove notability here? Really, really disappointing to see from an experienced editor as yourself. Sergecross73 msg me 01:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Nowhere near enough coverage to justify a separate article. --Michig (talk) 09:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PewDiePie#Discography per above, which it originally was a part of is what I had originally said, but also check out Wumbolo's idea above as well. After reading about invalid reasoning listed below, I have now changed my mind. Only when the article can be proven to be expanded and better sourced, then it can become its own article, but only then. Note the person who claimed this is a Wikipedia administrator and an authority on this matter. Either way I vote for a redirect. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is invalid reasoning per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:VAGUEWAVE. Sergecross73 msg me 22:54, 3 November 2018 (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. Mkdw ^talk 01:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Education and Research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe

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

Lengthy article about an esoteric non-profit organisation and a dumping ground of every non-notable scrap of information about it. The citations recently added are not about eCAADe. I can't find significant independent reliable coverage about the organisation online. Fails WP:NONPROFIT and could probably be safely described as a thinly disguised advertisement. Time for it to go. Sionk (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is very niche as indicated by the name, the few refs are primary, trivial or 404. Their website states they are a charity and they offer a talking place, an annual conference and journal. No results on news, google offering academia only. Szzuk (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing found that would indicate sufficient significance for inclusion. --Michig (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do modify this article. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 15:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jiahui Chen

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

Contested PROD, Non-notable tennis player who fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG. Iffy★Chat -- 13:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom. Only lower level ITF titles but that is no where near notability guidelines. No sources found. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2018 (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 16:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enfocus

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

This article is about a small non-notable company. A search for references turns up nothing significant in terms of independent reliable sources - routine coverage only. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The article is entirely the product of single-purpose accounts, several of which have an obvious username connection to the company such as Enfocusmarketing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), EnfocusMKT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Enfocus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This article is nothing more than blatant self-promotion. Deli nk (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Esko (company): A Prod in 2010 was removed with the objection that the company's Pitstop software is notable, but the WP:NCORP standards require more than a suggestion of inheriting notability. I am not seeing evidence of specific notability for the company. There is brief coverage at the article on the immediate parent company, so a redirect could be appropriate. AllyD (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2018 (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.

This discussion became quite sidetracked to debate the legitimacy of the work conducted by the subject. Wikipedia relies on significant coverage from reliable independent sources. Concerns over whether the individual had been the focus of sources were not a adequately addressed and it was not reasonably demonstrated that the individual clearly meets WP:GNG. Mkdw ^talk 01:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Klenner

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

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred R. Klenner and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred R. Klenner (2nd nomination), the latter article was started by the same author who wrote this (and virtually nothing else). This article has referenciness, but in the end it does not stack up. Content about the subject and his life is all taken form a book by Jerry Bledsoe, in which Klenner is a minor character. Content about his work and findings is drawn from unreliable sources, often faux-medical sources like Townsend Letter. The result is an article that paints Klenner, a figure in the world of orthomolecular quackery, as a true medical visionary. This fails WP:FRINGE. The Bledsoe book seems to be the only reliable source that covers Klenner, and the sourcing in this article is actually worse than the deleted one. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is entirely written in an unencyclopedic style, referencing is far too reliant on a single source of questionable reliability. WP:JUNK applies.GirthSummit _(blether) 10:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, adequately sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does seem to overly rely on one dubious source and a lot of primary sources. I also see a degree of overcite here as well. I suggest nuking and starting from scratch, leaving out all puffery and questionable sources.Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have rarely seen so many references to an individual source that didn't have the article subject as it's primary focus. Seriously, over thirty references to Bitter Blood? Then there are a huge number of references to Klenner's own work, which are fringe and clearly don't meet WP:MEDRS. I just don't see significant coverage independent of the subject, per WP:NFRINGE: "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers." So, not orthomolecular journals, not Klenner's own publications, not The Healing Factor: Vitamin C Against Disease, not self-published blogs, and not primary research for medical claims. --tronvillain (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tronvillain, or nuke and redirect to Megavitamin therapy per previous AfD. Does not appear to meet WP:NFRINGE. Catrìona (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by author, danslation

The sage editor who wants to delete my article on Dr. Frederick Klenner claims the article “paints Klenner, a figure in the world of orthomolecular quackery, as a true medical visionary.” In fact the article, based mostly on investigative reporting and Dr. Klenner’s clinical reports from over 25 years of medical practice, gives a balanced view of Klenner’s career: It demonstrates Klenner’s success in using vitamin therapy — injected megadoses of vitamin C, as well as B vitamins — to relieve and cure a wide range of acute illnesses, including viral pneumonia, polio, measles, and tetanus. It also shows that Klenner tended to over-diagnose multiple sclerosis and thus exaggerate his cure rate for that disease.

Moreover, the Frederick Klenner article reveals the ugly side of Klenner’s personality: his domineering over his wife and children; his political sympathies for the Nazis, John Birch Society and Ku Klux Klan; his contempt for black people; his apocalyptic Catholic fanaticism; and his obsessive collection of guns and survival supplies, which he hoarded in anticipation of the coming apocalypse. None of this material was included in the earlier Wikipedia article on Fred R. Klenner — which I did not write, but contributed to — and which got deleted. Yet our sage editor insists that “the sourcing in this article is actually worse than the deleted one.” The old article, which gave a fragmentary and one-sided view of Klenner’s career, contained 16 footnotes. The current article, which gives a detailed and balanced view of Klenner’s career, contains 87 footnotes.

Our sage editor claims that “content about the subject and his life is all taken form [sic] a book by Jerry Bledsoe, in which Klenner is a minor character.” Wrong on both counts: While I draw heavily on Jerry Bledsoe’s carefully researched book of investigative reporting, Bitter Blood, I draw on other sources as well, such as Ebony magazine, Adelle Davis’s book Let’s Eat Right to Keep Fit, and the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine. And, far from being a “minor character” in Bledsoe’s book Bitter Blood, Frederick Klenner is mentioned over 50 times in that book, with several multi-page sections devoted to his life and career. Our sage editor goes on to admit that the Bledsoe book is a “reliable source,” all the while complaining I rely on it too heavily. He also complains that I draw on “unreliable sources, often faux-medical sources like Townsend Letter.” In fact, no mention of, or reference to the Townsend Letter appears in the Frederick Klenner article.

Our sage editor — once again demonstrating his equanimity and devotion to the truth — claims that I “wrote this (and virtually nothing else)” on Wikipedia. Wrong again. I am the main author of the articles on Junípero Serra, José de Gálvez and Pedro Fages, and the exclusive author of the article on Miguel Costansó. I’ve contributed to several other Wikipedia articles — for example, writing a major portion of the section on the expulsion of Jesuit priests from Spain and Mexico in 1767. Danslation (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We use third party sources, not a mans own claims to his works efficacy (for example).Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current article slavishly and uncritically repeats claims that he cured people. TNT needed. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 17:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject is not notable, however skilfully blown up with the appearance of references. Essentially we have here a single source and an attempt to portray the subject as significant with much trivial and unencyclopedic detail. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Author’s reply to objections to primary sources

In this case, most of the primary sources cited — Dr. Frederick Klenner’s medical papers & case studies from 1948 to 1974 — enable scientific testing and refutation. Klenner provided precise data on his dosing and methods of injecting vitamin C (sodium ascorbate) to treat a wide range of acute diseases.

Medical doctors who view Klenner’s methods as quackery and his clinical reports as fringe science are at full liberty to test his methods and see if they can replicate his results — either on consenting human patients, or lab animals drawn from species — like haplorhine primates and guinea pigs — that, like humans, cannot synthesize their own ascorbic acid. Carefully observing and recording the results, such medical researchers can submit their studies to medical or scientific journals for publication. Once such studies get published, they can be summarized and added to the Klenner article.

What makes more sense: promoting free scientific inquiry via Wikipedia — or summarily suppressing data from an unorthodox medical doctor’s work, so as to bolster the hegemonic medical paradigm? Danslation (talk) 06:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fallacious rubbish. His claims have already been tested and found to be false. In any case that is irrelevant to Wikipedia's notability standards (though your comments do speak to your own biases). Guy (Help!) 07:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really: Klenner’s “claims have already been tested and found to be false”? Where? When? How? Can you cite a single scientific experiment that used Klenner’s dosing of sodium ascorbate and refuted his clinical findings? If so, why haven’t you added it to the Klenner article?

Regarding the question of bias, I appreciate your wry sense of humor: Evidently you, who launched this suppression campaign by denouncing Klenner — with no substantiation — as a “figure in the world of orthomolecular quackery,” have no biases, and no need to soil your hands with the facts of the real world. Nor any need to retract false and absurd claims that “the sourcing in this article is actually worse than the deleted one” or that it relies on Townsend Letter. Nor any need to apologize to the author for your slanderous assertion that he “wrote this (and virtually nothing else)" on Wikipedia. Danslation (talk) 10:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then lets use those reports by independent Medical doctors that support his findings. His work is not independent of him, it is not third party. As such it cannot be used for factual statements about his work, nor tare they a good way to demonstrate notability.Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While Klenner’s work is indeed not independent of him, it enables independent verification or refutation: In his clinical reports, Klenner laid bare his therapeutic methods, so that any other medical doctor or researcher can test them. Danslation (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, it's not a productive use of research time to painstakingly refute every piece of pseudoscience and every fringe theory someone comes up with. We also already have articles on his theories, and they should be primarily covered at those articles – they're already reasonably detailed, and you can always add to them, so this is hardly suppression. WP:CONTENTFORKs are inadvisable because of maintenance and POV issues. Now, the question here is whether the article covers someone that meets WP:Notability – which he may, as the founder of a fringe field – and whether this article does so in a way meeting WP:NPOV, which it does not. Giving WP:UNDUE weight to negative aspects of his personal life, the details of which are really not that notable, does not justify doing the same in the opposite direction to his theories. The article should do neither. If you really do want to work on it, I'd suggest keeping the article short and to the point, perhaps like Samuel Hahnemann. There is no need to have comprehensive coverage of the field he founded on the biographical page, and it would likely be better received if improvements were made at the topic article instead, with a WP:Summary style section linking to the main article.

Honestly, I understand if you're really passionate about this stuff, but Wikipedia isn't for "promoting free scientific inquiry", it's for collating, summarising and simplifying what's written in reliable sources. Having those ideals are great and all, but they aren't suitable for a genral encyclopedia: You're better off starting your own blog, YouTube channel, or petitioning your elected representative for research into those areas. Wikipedia is a hammer, and not everything is a nail. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Far from fringe theory, this article covers over 25 years of clinical practice by a free-thinking medical doctor.Danslation (talk) 10:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

learn to indent your posts, and stop shouting. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 11:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read wp:rs, wp:n and wp:NPOV, wp:fringe might help as well.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy's reply makes less sense after my edit, but that was an unreadable mess. See WP:THREAD. --tronvillain (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I think the point has been well made. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 16:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but even if it weren't a fringe theory (which it is, even if a couple of people have devoted their careers to it) it's still more appropriately covered at the main article. Most of the content in the current article is irrelevant to his notability as a person, and will be deleted. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you Wikipedia sages had been around in the 1650s, you would have deleted any biography of Galileo Galilei, redirecting all mentions of Galileo to the “main article” on the geocentric model. Had you sages been around in 1860, you would have deleted any biography of Louis Pasteur, redirecting all mentions of Pasteur to the “main article” on spontaneous generation. Had you sages been around in the 1930s, you would have deleted any biography of Edwin Hubble, redirecting all mentions of Hubble to the “main article” on the steady state model.

Note that Guy, who launched the campaign to suppress knowledge of the life and medical career of Frederick Klenner, lapsed into resounding silence when I called his bluff that Klenner’s “claims have already been tested and found to be false” — challenging him to cite a single experiment that used Klenner’s vitamin C dosing and refuted his clinical findings. For a smug religious fraternity, real-world facts have no use or value.

Danslation (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly, as that is what policy would dictate, but that is so as to ensure that we do not give N-rays the same status as X-rays or piltdown man the same credibility as Australopithecus. The simple fact is most of us (are you?) are not qualified medical researchers, so we rely on those who are. And we rely on third parties precisely because we do not want to repeat the mistakes of accepting that Lamarckism is a valid scientific theory.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice Galileo gambit you have there, but it does nothing to establish notability here. If, in some unlikely event, Klenner somehow becomes a real Galileo, then he'll certainly merit an article. --tronvillain (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited User:Slatersteven's comment immediately above, for meaning. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 13:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were correct that is what I had intended to say, but it might have been best practice to just ask (rather then edit).Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On an article that attracts such attention from true believers, perhaps you should proof read before making such edits. Roxy, in the middle. wooF 16:40, 2 November 2018 (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. Mkdw ^talk 01:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin L. Barney

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Source searches are only providing a passing mention (not significant coverage) and quotations from the subject (primary in nature). Furthermore, the article is entirely reliant upon unreliable sources and primary sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the coverage needed to meet the GNG and I don't see evidence he meets WP:NAUTHOR (340 blogs for By Common Consent doesn't do it).Sandals1 (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There isn't even a viable claim of notability here. --Michig (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient claim to notability, promo. Szzuk (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2018 (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. Mkdw ^talk 01:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Webcasting Association

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

No working references. Doesnt seem to exist any more. Was it notable? Rathfelder (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, maybe even speedy as a mix of copyvio and promo. Page started off as a straight copy paste from their then website, copyright 2003 [29]. Only significant additions since then have been pure PR straight from the org, eg."goal is to keep our members" [30] (wouldn't be surprised if it was also copyvio). Even if they are notable the entire history should be removed so best to delete and allow someone independent to start again if they are notable (far from convinced). duffbeerforme (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some coverage found: [31], [32], [33], [34]. --Michig (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A primary-sourced article whose content following the WP:SPA changes in August 2006 is typical of the About and Membership benefits sections on a website. The several items of book coverage mentioned above do not rise above passing mentions and listings. While evidence can be found of acting as an industry lobby group (e.g. 2000 submission), I agree with duffbeerforme's comments and anyway do not see the coverage about the IWA needed to demonstrate WP:ORGDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - From my source searches, I have found nothing except for mentions in directories or a passing mention to an awards ceremony it used to co-host that does not seem to have received any secondary coverage. If you host an awards show and no one shows up, I think it's tough to argue that your notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Isingness (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 15:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Soubry

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

Article on an individual telling us what a wonderful guy he is, reads like a Linkedin profile. Written by an editor who has only ever edited this article. Jolargo (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There might be the kernel of a salvageable article in there about a notable businessperson, but with all the WP:PEACOCK in the article, especially the obviously fluffed out references section, it's hard to tell. Delete and let somebody who isn't in a COI recreate if they find something notable to base the article on. Simonm223 (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - quality of the prose notwithstanding, there are some persuasive references in there, including refs from The National Post and The Globe and Mail. The one from the Top CEO list from the National Post is a clincher for me. PK T(alk) 15:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jolargo: @AllyD: et al - "fluff" deleted (not aware descriptives could not be given; not a Wiki expert yet). Remaining content is factual and referenced - feel free to edit.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sourcing is sufficient (based off access to the GDPR-blocked ones but not the registration-blocked ones), and the other issues have been reduced sufficiently to be insufficient grounds. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Badr el Battahi

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

Non-notable individual, fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. The Reuters source may sound serious, but the disclaimer on the bottom of the website notes it is "produced independently of Reuters Editorial News" and "in partnership with the Commercial Advertising Department for Reuters.com." Advertising based upon advertising. MarginalCost (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO. Wikipedia is not a promotional platform. Bakazaka (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - this is the very definition of promotional. The sooner WP is rid of it, the better! OriginalG (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and a violation of terms of use. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is no consensus to delete. Should anyone wish to pursue a merge, this should be proposed on the article talk pages. Michig (talk) 09:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wellington to Nantwich Railway

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

Contested WP:PROD. Concern was: We already have articles Wellington and Drayton Railway and Nantwich and Market Drayton Railway - this one is redundant to those. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment JoshuaIsTheFalco deprodded this with the edit summary: "I request this page remain because it helps to cover a line which was at first two separate railways but then merged into one and remained that way till closure. Instead of two separate articles, This will help to improve both the knowledge of the former railway, it has already the information of both railways and is more easier to read as it is all in one article and not two separate ones." Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment iff this is deleted (and I am at present undecided on the merits of this) then it should be replaced with a disambiguation page linking to the other articles as the name is well used in sources. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, someone needs to dig around to see what these lines were called back in the day they were open. I suspect this is a synthesis of two separate lines, but can't tell for sure. Szzuk (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Neutral. The situation seems to be that these two railways were created separately around the 1860s, and were notionally if not practically separate until the 1890s before formally joining. I think this is a delete based upon the references in this new article all mentioning the separate lines, indicating it is a content fork, it is well intentioned but not needed. I don't think we can create a disambiguation page because they require articles with the same name which these don't have. A better option would be a delete and redirect to either line with a hatnote on the other. \Szzuk (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm switching to neutral, it is a marginal call so i'm erring on the do nothing side. Szzuk (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, the line was indeed formed from two independent railways which both already have articles, but after the GWR took over it was treated as a single route under that name, as explained in the book Shropshire Railways. Quite properly, Wikipedia has a page for its GWR and later BR incarnations, and separate pages for the two independent nineteenth century companies that formed the components of the line. The only sensible way of having just one page would be to merge everything else here. I don't think that is necessary, but in any case, it would still be a keep. SpinningSpark 13:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Spinningspark. It's possible that there needs to be some reorganisation of material between the three articles and/or a merge, but in the latter case this would be the target article and the others would be redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's no consensus both regarding the level of sourcing and notability, and the validity of what I assume is indeed a deletion request by the subject. I am persuaded by DGG's argument for why, under these circumstances, I should not exercise whatever discretion I may have as closer to close this as "delete" per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Sandstein 16:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Érin Geraghty

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

Ms Geraghty has contacted me as the article's creator asking for it to be deleted for the following reasons:

it breaches her right to privacy
it is inaccurate and could damage her career
she did not request it and does not want it

I blanked the page citing these reasons but it has been reinstated. Jack1956 (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as nominator has not provided a valid reason for deletion. Bakazaka (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - perfectly valid reasons to delete. Dreamspy (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject appears to be notable under WP:NACTOR#1, there does not appear to be negative material in the article, and the article does not appear to be written non-neutrally. Inaccuracies can and should be corrected with proper sourcing, and the article could certainly use better sourcing in general, but those are not reasons to delete. So, to clarify, to which valid reason for deletion are you referring? Bakazaka (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Bakazaka's comment above. The subject herself has zero control over the article and does not have the authority to delete her article on Wikipedia; even concerning the reason, privacy violations alone should be handled via a request for an office action, never here. ToThAc (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. While she is an active actress, she has no public social media accounts, doesn't give interviews, and doesn't have a large fan base. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOWPROFILE, which is the "see also" in the second policy you cite, clarifies that a person is "high-profile" if they have "appeared as a featured performer or speaker for a publicly advertised event at which admission was collected and/or which garnered significant independent, non-local coverage". That is the case for this subject, an active professional actress. As the explanatory supplement suggests, the "low profile/not public" language in the documents you cite is meant to protect otherwise unremarkable living people who get caught up in coverage of events and might technically qualify under WP:GNG, not people whose professions depend on public attention and whose articles are about their entirely public careers. Bakazaka (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOWPROFILE notes that "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." You quoted the characteristics described under "Appearances and performances" but she probably doesn't meet the characteristics of "Media attention", "Promotional activities", or "Eminence". Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 06:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's an explanatory supplement, not a checklist. The subject is an actress with a decades-long career pursuing roles on screen and stage, successfully. Her career has plenty of RS coverage going back to at least 1971 (Variety review of Tales of Beatrix Potter), and in her later career she is described using phrases like "renowned British actress". She may have different preferences now, but her 40+ year public-facing career is a legitimate subject of a BLP-compliant article. I'm sure you are acting in good faith and we simply disagree, so it's probably a good time to let other editors weigh in. Bakazaka (talk) 08:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She does, however, have her own website promoting herself as an actress! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Morgan Ginsberg: As far as I can tell, while this Twitter account isn't checkmark verified, it seems to be her. She's had it for ten years, and the account is highly active, racking up 20 500 tweets and 20 900 likes. That's about 12 posts a day, most of which seem to be related to the industry. So the claim that there's no public social media doesn't seem to be correct. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. The subject is an active actress in television and film, not a private person whose biography should be suppressed to protect her privacy. That said, her notability does not seem to be strong enough to establish her as notable per WP:NACTOR. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the sources are not WP:RSs, including information about her children cited to poor sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Though it is difficult to maintain that an article about an actor ipso facto breaches his or her privacy, I concur with the immediately preceding comment that the bulk of the citations do not conform to WP:RS, and also that the notability of the performer is far from demonstrated. The statement that the article is materially inaccurate, though we are not told the details, is another reason to suggest to me that Wikipedia would do well to delete this article. I take all the points made above by Bakazaka, but on balance I think deletion is decidedly the best course. Tim riley talk 06:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per many of the above WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. I'm also conscious of the (European) law of the right to be forgotten. While we are under no legal reason to remove the article (with the servers in the US), I do think we shouldn't ignore valid LP requests in this area. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm honestly not sure she's notable enough for an article and obviously unsourced material should be removed anyway (as it should be for any article, especially BLPs). However, I find the reasons for requested deletion and some of the comments bizarre. She is an actress. She is still working as an actress. She has a website promoting herself as an actress. If she'd wanted a "right to privacy" or a "right to be forgotten" then a career as an actress is clearly not the right one to have picked and maintaining a website about herself is obviously hypocritical! It seems she's more concerned about picking and choosing which information she wants to be on the internet rather than an actual right to privacy; if everyone did that and it was upheld then we'd be exceptionally constrained about writing about any living person on Wikipedia, as we could only include information that they wanted included, even if it was properly sourced. It's not her choice whether we have an article about her or not and it's not her choice what information is included in that article (as long as it's already in the public domain in a reliable source, of course). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Take out the stuff supported by tabloids, and you're left with content that is pretty much the same as is presented on the subject's own website, so I would take the request to delete with a pinch of salt. Having said that, she isn't a clearly notable actor, so if she doesn't want an article here, let's delete it. --Michig (talk) 06:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has performed internationally, and positive reviews of her have appeared in Canadian and US newspapers, as well as national UK papers. (The birth of her triplets was reported in national UK newspapers at the time, so mentioning that with reliable sources should be OK too, though not necessary to a profile of her as an actress.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the subject doesn't want the article and its causing her problems it should go 2A00:23C4:E180:8101:AD83:19EC:BCE8:3AC (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Necrothesp: it looks to function as basically a Linkedin profile (one of the most prominent links is "C.V.") that she sends to people when she's applying for acting roles. Pretty tame compared to Tom Cruise's website which has a banner promoting his latest movie taking up most of the screen, a link to "get tickets", and links to his social media accounts. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 01:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I very strongly think we should generally not honor requests from a person for the article about them to be removed, when it's an articles about someone's public career, though of course there are special cases. The reason is that honoring such requests gives the subjects a veto power over our content--it is usually a statement that they want more positive or promotional coverage than we are giving, and they only want a promotional article, not a NPOV article. (essentially, "I want it my way, or you can't have it") Claims of "inaccurate and could damage their career" usually means that the "inaccuracy" is not including the fluff, and that they thing anything their press agent does not control would damage their career. Actual inaccuracy can & should be corrected, and always is if the evidence is provided to the OTRS agent. I doubt that even in Europe an actress can claim retrospectively that she has a right to privacy in her career., at least her adult career in mainstream film. If we want to consider actual notability , that would be best done by closing this and opening an AfD not contaminated by the subject's personal wishes. DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If any of the content is inaccurate, it should be fixed and obviously the content should be fully referenced. I have certainly heard of her so she's not a nonentity, and she has the opportunity to enlighten us as to what is supposedly wrong with the article rather than asking us to delete it for privacy reasons. What would she say if every production she appears in remained unreviewed so as to protect the actors' privacy? To be gushingly complimentary is not the function of this encyclopedia. Deb (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the acting career is not to the level we should have the article over the objections of the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not really seeing any evidence of notability as such .... The reviews are great and all but I'd prefer to see a lot more besides those, Google News doesn't bring up much in terms of notability, It's a tough one but overall I'd say Delete for failing GNG (not because she requests it as that's not really relevant). –Davey2010^Talk 15:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above keep !votes. While not the most prominent of actresses, there is definitely a case to be made for notability given the sources in the article and quoted here. Acting is public-facing profession, she has a website and apparently very active Twitter account (though not checkmarked) which posts a ton on industry-related things, and her notability is at the very worst borderline, so I don't think WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can accept that the picture is not exactly the most flattering in the world, and she wants to keep her family out of the limelight. However, her theatrical appearances are a matter of public record and documented in multiple good-quality sources, so I cannot in good conscience call WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE on this. If the article still contains factual errors, we need to know what they are so we can fix them. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:34, 4 November 2018 (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.