Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 August	15 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VetsNYC

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

Not notable (WP:N). Quoted mention in NY Times is passing mention identifying a quoted person as working for the organization. There are other passing mentions of Riverside Animal Hospital as a location where animals were abandoned or taken for treatment, but the articles were not about VetsNYC or Riverside Animal Hospital itself. If

WP:NHOSPITALS also applies to veterinary hospitals, then this page does not meet "notable hospital" criteria as there are no sources discussing the organization in-depth. DferDaisy (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Even the passing mention in the NYT article isn't about the subject, it's about a hospital they acquired. Nearly CSD worthy. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails all notability guidelines by a wide margin. Rentier (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dejan Bandović

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

It's been six years since the last deletion, but the underlying notability concerns remain the same. He has still not played in a fully professional league or received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails

WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I expanded the article. Passes GNG with flying colors, having won the 2013/14 national cup, and the 2015/16 national league. Even more notably, he became widely known in the region for the 2017 "Cener affair", duly recorded in the article.
No such user (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fails
~~WP:BLP1E. Fenix down (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)~~[reply
]

Weak keep - although a number of the sources below are simply
routine transfer talk, sources 2 and 3 indicate GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. How is the following not an application that the subject has garnered "significant reliable coverage for any other achievements":
[1] Coverage of his Velež-Sarajevo transfer, 2012

[2] Interview to Radio Sarajevo, 2013

[3], interview, 2014, where he was qualified as "one of best individuals in the match against the neighbors"

[4] Invited to national team, but ended short of playing a match, 2014

[5] Coverage of his Sarajevo-Olimpic transfer, 2015

Vast coverage from 2017, and the affair, now in the article.

For what it's worth, the Premier League became fully professional in 2016-17 season.

And all this coverage is subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject. (
WP:SPORTBASIC
)

What we have here is a solid, long-standing player in a country's top-tier league, on the verge of the national team. Who also has won the national championship and cup. And is notable for a role in a sports affair as well.
No such user (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep - Fails
WP:GNG per the references and content No such user has provided. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep passes
WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not going to NAC it as keep because there a couple "weak"s. I also don't think we would need this to be salted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I feel like I must be missing something here, but the article subject clearly meets
WP:GNG. A Train^talk 10:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@
No such user (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Verity

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Meets neither

WP:MUSICBIO Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was deprodded because the only thing on this page at the time this article was created was a redirect. I added the appropriate article for this page. Further, you have falsely asserted that this article doesn't meet notability guidelines. The article clearly disproves that. I will list them in order of their numeration on the notability guidelines page. 2 - artist was #1 on Billboard's former BTN chart. 5 - Has released projects on Universal and JVC Kenwood / Victor Entertainment. #9 (Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition.) Has won The John Lennon Songwriting Award two years in a row as well as the USA Songwriting Competition. Knawwwledge (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG notability guideline. Is it possible for you to add references to the article? See also Help:Referencing for beginners. Hmlarson (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hmlarson Thank you for your welcome, I really appreciate it. It has been hard to make sense of the workflow involved around here. I have added the references for the Universal signing press release, and the JVC deal through All Music Database for the album on JVC Japan. Unfortunately, some references are no long available, such as the now defunct Farmclub and Billboard Talentnet Chart. Knawwwledge (talk) 04:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any evidence of the subject having won the Lennon songwriting award, among other things. Without sourcing, this one is an easy delete. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 05:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as non-notable and restore redirect to Dave Verity. Giant Snowman 07:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's relative and comes down to context.For instance it's acceptable to include a former soccer player, but not someone who's achieved things in the music world. I've added citations from personal twitter accounts from Jon B, added citations from All Music which is the leading discography website proving his release on a major label, added a direct citation for the Getty Images relationship, added a citation linking to HMV, which it clearly says right her eon Wikipedia is the largest music retailer in the United Kingdom, overtaking Amazon, and they did a feature on this artist. I also linked to a song he produced for a singer who sang a Grammy award winning song. I understand that perhaps context is a factor here. Some people don't watch soccer, and some people may not be familiar with R&B music. I understand that. But when given it's proper context of being an R&B musician, I think this article fits. Knawwwledge (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Rentier (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable musician. The available sourcing doesn't indicate why he should be included in Wikipedia, and he certainly doesn't meet the MUSICBIO. Since he meets neither the SNG or the GNG, he is excluded from coverage in Wikipedia by
WP:N. Also, I want to note that the relist here was unneeded: I commented to make the consensus clearer so another relist didn't happen, but there was a clear consensus favouring deletion beforehand with only an SPA arguing against deletion with non-policy based arguments. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

8 Water New Zealand

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

Self promotional article about a non-notable company by parties with a potential conflict of interest

talk) 22:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 22:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 22:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 22:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 22:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

COI and likely sock account removed the advert tag. Going to issue first level warning and take to SPI if I have time.
talk) 22:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Not notable and reads like an advertisement.
^(talk) 03:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete As per nom. Promotional. Creator and several SPA contributors have clear COI. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional and not notable. CoolieCoolster (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional, please read
What Wikipedia is not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Builder8360 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

FYI, every SPA editor in this case has been blocked for sockpuppetry.
talk) 00:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Easy Delete –
sockpuppetry. Sorry. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tayler Buono

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

Fails

WP:CHART. - TheMagnificentist 19:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - TheMagnificentist 19:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - TheMagnificentist 19:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - TheMagnificentist 19:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too soon. The most compelling argument for the article is the Spotify Viral 50 charting, but as nom points out that
doesn't meet the source standards for charts. A Train^talk 10:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I'm going to go with
WP:TOOSOON also. I read all the coverage in the article about her, and there's no biographical info at all that you would expect from a notable performer. I found this [[6]] but have never heard of this publication before. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 03:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

GP Bullhound

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

Struggling to find good independent coverage. Only employs 60 people, and they all look like

WP:CORPDEPTH. Edwardx (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 08:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per

WP:G7 North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Heidi Regan

)

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

Reason Nlewendon (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, I created this page and now would really like for it to be deleted. It's possible it doesn't fall within notability guidelines. Even so, the subject of the article has requested its deletion. I've saved the code for another day. Hope that's OK.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 22:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 22:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy Delete. G7 Author requests deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Ron Goldman

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

Goldman is obviously

only notable for one event. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 21:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 21:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This is a ridiculous nomination.
WP:BLP1E clearly states that "we should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met." Not one, each. It's true that condition #1 is met. You could even make an argument that #2 is met, although that's up for debate. What's definitely not up for debate is that he doesn't, in any way, meet condition #3: "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Obviously the event was massively significant, and his role was extremely well documented. As he was one of the people killed in the event, you tell me, was his role substantial? Rockypedia (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

note - prior AFD was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ronald_Goldman. Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Massive sourcing available as one of two victims in the O.J. Simpson Affair; terrible nomination. The L of "BLP" stands for Living, which Mr. Goldman sadly is not; ergo BLP-1E doesn't even apply. TROUT to the ready... Carrite (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why are we discussing
WP:BIO1E is more appropriate, given the murder was over 20 years ago. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Highly notable crime victim. bd2412 T 02:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While this AfD does not meet any of the criteria outlined for a
speedy keep, Goldman is the subject of such extensive coverage that there is very little question, IMO, that this is a keep. I predict a virtual blizzard will close this case fairly soon. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Goldman satisfies criteria number 3 in the reasoning that Diaz linked above. The murders were a significant event and Goldman's role as a victim is well documented. --Adam in MO Talk 09:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP is a tertiary source. We summarize secondary sources that are
WP:WAWARD) 19:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep WP:SK#1 WP:NPASR No argument for deletion. The
WP:BIO1E lede states, "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." Does the nominator or anyone else see the word "deletion" there? Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I decided to check out why it was that people were talking about "BLP1E". It seems that the nominator has made a quiet edit in violation of WP:TPG. I also note the edit comment that claims BIO1E is a "policy". Unscintillating (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Goodness what a poorly-chosen nomination this is, the victim of one of the most notorious murders of the 20th century. Tens of hundreds of books, films, documentaries, dramatizations. Goldman doesn't get the level coverage in those that OJ or Nicole get, but the coverage is still significant in its own right. TheValeyard (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This individual's murder was the basis for one of the most famous trials of the twentieth century. What's also relevant here is the international nature of this individual's notability. People around the world are aware of OJ Simpson's murder trials and how this person is connected with them. I am for one, quite surprised to see this nominated for deletion. My opinion, we keep this article on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyingBlueDream (talk • contribs) 09:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (

WP:SNOW close). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Dj Anas Anu

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

Fails

WP:RS by a long shot. Kleuske (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Pretty sure his fan club page doesn't count as a WP:RS. Other than that and his own Facebook page(s) I basically see no reference to him anywhere. Cthomas3 (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any coverage in reliable sources. All that exists is social media pages, fan clubs, and other highly unreliable sources. If anyone is able to find coverage in reliable sources I'll change my vote to Keep, but with this subject that possibility seems unlikely.
talk) 21:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: fails
WP:MUSICBIO. Struggling to find any mention of him outside of his own social media. The career highlight described in the article is playing the Cochin Carnival on NYE 2016, but even references to this are Anu's own videos of the event. Richard3120 (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Searches turn in literally nothing for his notability. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 22:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What, fan club pages aren't reliable sources? Obviously fails
WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - as just
notability. Bearian (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mine Güngör

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Contested prod. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. I noted that some more sources were added by the deprodder, but not a single one of them comes remotely close to satisfying the "significant coverage" requirement of the GNG: they're trivial namedrops and routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by
WP:ROUTINE as satisfying notability standards. Another in a string of NN articles on Turkish women hockey players, and so far there hasn't been a shred of evidence to suggest that the Turkish press pays any more attention to women's hockey than the North American press. Ravenswing 23:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fails
brief routine mentions. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

David D. Smith

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources and pretty much fails

WP:BLP1E. And, Wikipedia is not a repository for an indiscriminate collection of information. There are one line mentions of this topic in sources such as an NYT article [7] and Mother Jones[8]. But these are about a different subject, not this topic, David D. Smith, ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator - I looked for a redirect in the edit history, and did not see one. A comment on the talk page indicated this was a redirect page and changed to an article on August 14, 2007 (diff here). I found the redirect. It was created in 2008 (Diff here}. I am guessing that coverage about the Sinclair Broadcast Group in the NYT and the media in general probably inspired this change, but without any reliable sources to indicate this merits inclusion. Hence, I also say - this page is probably
WP:TOOSOON. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The article was terrible; it was just the 2008 article. But the article subject has recently become very important.[9] His Sinclair Broadcast Group (173 TV stations) is acquiring Tribune Media (42 TV stations), which gives him control of more TV stations in the US than anybody else. Plus the Chicago Tribune and some other newspapers. He's now America's most powerful media baron, eclipsing Rupert Murdoch. It's not too soon. The article just needs updating. John Nagle (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Put in some references from CNN, Bloomberg, and NYT. Article still needs work, though. John Nagle (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Smith may not be as high-profile as Rupert Murdoch, but he is similarly important. The Guardian today even makes mention of this supposedly non-existing Wikipedia article about Smith here, but does provide some biographical info and refers to an interview with the Baltimore Sun in 1995. Reliable sources exist.
talk) 14:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep As per the previous comment. Google returns plenty of results for Smith; there's certainly enough there to provide the material for a reasonable wiki entry. And his role certainly meets the ciriteria for notability MarkSG (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Smith was CEO of SBGI for over 25 years, growing it into the largest owner of TV stations in the US. Now executive chairman, he's still leading the company. He and the family are publicity-shy, but there are enough RSs with in-depth coverage out there if you look for them. Have added some, and will try to do more. Edwardx (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avaza (software)

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

Standard promotional software blurb: borderline A7/G11 but the text isn't quite fluffy enough to be G11 and the article is technically about the software and not the company, so not A7 eligible.

The sourcing in the article at present doesn't meet

WP:BEFORE search, I could find no additional sourcing that would bring the article up to our standards. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As noted, close to G11, and fails to satisfy notability for either company or product. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Half the article is about people, not the software. Weakish references/sources but mainly
WP:TOOSOON I think. If it is to be notable it will get better referencing naturally over time. Aoziwe (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Robert.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William F.X. Maughan

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

Non-notable local politician lacking in-depth, non-trivial coverage. Fails

WP:AUTHOR. reddogsix (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete, per nomination --EngiZe (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he also fails
WP:SOLDIER. His ONE book has a two-star rating.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. If there was any question was the "many books" in the article - which does seem to be one book (The Grappling Hook) and not of great note. He doesn't seem to have coverage. So he fails
WP:AUTHOR. Pol and soldier he obviously fails.Icewhiz (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Being an officeholder at the county level of government is not an automatic
reliable source coverage about his writing to get a Wikipedia article for being a writer, but none at all is being shown here. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tagup (business)

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

Non-notable startup that fails the requirements of

WP:CORPDEPTH. The sourcing that does exist is either your typical startup press release churn, university PR sourcing, or run of the mill and trivial. After completing WP:BEFORE, I found no indication that this firm is notable, meaning that we should delete it. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Promotional puff piece. Fails notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in-depth to meet
WP:ADMASK by way of this reference which says nothing about the topic. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you for your comments all! I am very new and this is my first Wiki article and I am trying my best to create a page that is non-promotional and verifiable by outside sources. I used the Uptake (business) page as my reference for syntax and content, however, after reading this page over again I can now see how it comes across as promotional and puffy. Am I able to edit the page while in 'subject to deletion' phase to get rid of promotional content and remove the one reference not related to the topic as mentioned by CNMall41's comment?

Thank you TonyBallioni for your comments but I do not believe it is PR fluff that I have reference and made sure to not include any content created by the company directly. I believe from reading

WP:COMPANY

that it meets the notability requirements by having "multiple independent sources"

Thank you all for your patience as I learn how to produce appropriate articles on this great platform! ABgeer (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than free to edit the page to remove promotional content. However, you will need more than just "multiple independent sources" to show notability. Please refer to the section on

depth of coverage as it will help if you add references that meet this criteria.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thankyou for your help CNMall41. While I do acknowledge that some of the company reference pages are not very 'in-depth' and only reference general company details like location or year of founding, I do believe that this reference here goes into very deep detail and is from a very reputable academic institution. While the other reference are not as in-depth as this one, they do not seem to be bad enough to meet the exception criteria in

depth of coverage ABgeer (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:SPIP. I'll ping CNMall41 so they're aware of your comment here. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:CORPDEPTH. And that is a big "if" since I am probably more liberal with CORPDEPTH than others and even I would not consider that source reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

TonyBallioni, CNMall41, Thanks for your patience and for explaning your reasoning! I can now see why there would be the perception of non-independence with the main author being MIT. With all this being said, would it be possible to re-edit this artilce to simply include the facts about the company and not any of the claims of what it can do for customers as that would be promotional and non-verifiable?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ABgeer (talk • contribs) 19:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak for TonyBallioni, but I can tell you that even with facts you will need to have references that show notability. Without those references, it really doesn't matter what is on the page - facts or not. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm typically more restrictive in my views on the inclusion standards than CNMall, but we are in agreement here: the current level of sourcing does not establish

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a means of promotion, it would be inappropriate for us to retain the article even if it were a just the facts version. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

TonyBallioni, CNMall41, thank you for your help and feedback. Given your input, I think it is best to not publish this page until more independent coverage has been received. Is there a way to keep the source code and have it sit in the 'background' unpublished until more independent sources are available? ABgeer (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NuLiv Science

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

Doesn't seem to pass

our general notability guidelines. All sources I could find were press releases and overviews of the company, making them unreliable. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 15:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Not only about a non-notable company, but also unacceptably promotional, though not quite enough so (in my opinion) for speedy deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
talk) 15:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH. Unable to locate anything in-depth with a search of Google Search, News, or Books. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete – Promotional article with no sufficient independent coverage, written by a single purpose account, likely involved in a conflict of interest. —Paleo Neonate – 22:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to

(non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Economic survey of pakistan

)

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

As just a table, this does not add encyclopedic value. This table can be included in the article on Pakistan or a spin-out article. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up and merge into
talk) 16:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

merge into Economy of Pakistan. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge as suggested and per
WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to

(non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Tawag ng Tanghalan (season 2)

)

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

Fails

talk, contribs) 14:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirect or merge to Tawag ng Tanghalan - no independent notability, no independent sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Text of relevant discussion that took place on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests but was deleted there (not by me): Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{RMassist/core|1 = Draft:Tawag ng Tanghalan (season 2)|2 = Tawag ng Tanghalan (season 2)|discuss = yes|reason = Hello. I am requesting to move this draft page to the title above as said by user @Justlettersandnumbers to maintain the edit history. I can't move it by myself because there's already an article with same name. The contents from the draft should be transferred to the main article without the word draft. Thanks.|requester = Leo kingston}}
- @Justlettersandnumbers, Leo kingston, and Anthony Appleyard: why did this draft get moved from draft space into mainspace bypassing the Articles for Creation process? The draft had been declined. The author has not established the notability of the subject, and the three references are all self-published by the TV network. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Justlettersandnumbers, Leo kingston, and Curb Safe Charmer: See this edit: User:Leo kingston asked for it at 14:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The draft article was created before. The reason why the draft page was not accepted because I left it blank and cut the details and paste it to the main article. Then, @Justlettersandnumbers undo it and told me to submit the draft page to requested move so the edit history will remain when transferred to the main article. Leo kingston (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @
  talk, contribs) 14:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
- @
  GeoffreyT2000: Please read the parent article which is Tawag ng Tanghalan for you to understand the process. It's like the The Voice series werein each season has it's own article. I hope you undestand that the season 2 just began few months ago. And the finals will be next year. Each quarter the article will be updated when the show undergo semi finals.Leo kingston (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - (
    WP:Cut-and-paste move by Leo kingston. I would have contested the move to mainspace if I had seen it in time. Anthony Appleyard has long experience of this kind of muddle and will know what – if anything – to do next. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

This isn't the place to be discussing it. Please take it to the talk page of the article. Cheers. -- ^TW 15:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect not stand alone notable, as discussed at length. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 17:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirect to draftspace Notability won't enough --209.249.5.130 (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror Image Internet

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

Has been previously deleted for being insufficiently notable, and still is insufficiently notable. CoolieCoolster (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 13:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy delete - clearly a company without any notability. Doesn't even attempt to establish any notability, and a google search fails to help. 1st result is company's site, 2nd is this wikipedia article. ‡ ᕮl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 04:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is completely inreferenced. Fails
-- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Wikipedia does not have a requirement that the article's sources be in English — as long as our article is written in English and the sources are

reliable ones, which are both true here, the language of the sources is not relevant to whether the person passes GNG or not. Bearcat (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Carlo Giovanardi

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

It appears the only known sources about this person are not in English, effectively making this person fail

talk) 12:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the nomination is clearly invalid. The nominator misunderstood

WP:GNG. Reliable sources in any language are clearly acceptable.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy keep as per Ymblanter. Furthermore, I've taken a look at a random selection of the references in the article, and they clearly provide coverage sufficient to establish notability.

talk) 16:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aspen Heights

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Another non-notable development project. No indication of notability. Searches turned up no in-depth sourcing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - Run of the mill urban development project. Carrite (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. self-penned spam for non-notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khrystyna Tyminska

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

She does not seem to meet the notability criteria for

WP:Entertainer. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lalin Anık

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

Only a US assistant professor. Fails

WP:NACADEMIC. Edwardx (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Assistant professors are not automatically non-notable, but they need an unusually strong record to be notable per
WP:PROF and although she seems on her way to a successful career I don't see a pass yet. Her swimming achievements, also, while admirable, do not rise to the level of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS citation record nowhere near enough to pass
WP:Prof. Swimming is not yet notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC).[reply
]

Delete. No indication the subject meets
WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yadgar Ismail

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

Earlier versions [10] were better formatted and referenced, but this article has been tagged for notability and possible

WP:COI since June 2015. I can find no indication that it meets notability standards. Derek Andrews (talk) 11:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. That's the first time I can recall seeing an absolutely empty Google Scholar profile. Regardless, we have no evidence for notability as an academic or of any other kind. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero notability. Why was this BLP allowed to be created? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Agree, GS is a low-bound source and if an academic has an empty profile, it's pretty hard to claim notability. Agricola44 (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Case

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

Another Shreveport-related biography involving Billy Hathorn. A guy with perhaps some local notability but of no great or lasting significance. It's basically a tribute article. Sitush (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like an obit. Sourced from an obit. Wasn't able to find anything terribly substantive beyond the cited sources.Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no indication that this person was ever anywhere near being notable by our standards – the sources in the article are a report in a local newspaper of an ordinary, though fatal, traffic accident; and a reprint in the same local paper of an obituary from the website of the funeral home.

Note: I've removed all the body text as it was copied more or less verbatim from the sources. This is editor Billy Hathorn, banned for repeated copyright violations and associated sockpuppetry – the huge CCI is here. When Hathorn was banned, there was a suggestion that any of his articles with no substantive contribution from other editors should be presumptively deleted. That went nowhere at the time, but I would support it if it were revived. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: that could be complicated because I am sure he has edited numerous articles while logged out also. In fact, I've just mentioned one at User talk:Iridescent. The anon edits muddy the waters. - Sitush (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Sitush, nothing about this is simple, partly because of the sheer scale of the problem; while you were clearly right to bring this one to AfD, that doesn't seem to be a viable way of dealing with 6000 or more potentially tainted articles. Moonriddengirl suggested employing the same approach as was used for the Darius Dhlomo (not sure I spelt that right) investigation, which was, I think, to blank the articles with a special template and then delete those that hadn't had any attention after a certain time. A lot of IPs are listed on subpages 12 and 13 of the CCI, but there are surely many more. As a start, a bot could be asked to list any IP that has more than, say, three edits to pages edited by Hathorn. Someone clever with edit filters might have ideas for catching new IP socks. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no
significant coverage outside the local media.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Delete - I don't find enough on newspapers.com, genealogybank (a newspaper site like newspapers.com), etc. I see a few mentions in program notes to confirm his radio and television work. I also find a couple passing mentions as a host of other events (radio and television hosts frequently are invited to host other events, after all), and mention of his country club. To me, it isn't enough to write a
WP:ANYBIO), but I don't see it here. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Greening

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

Seems to fail

WP:GNG. This is yet another Shreveport-related article that had substantial involvement from Billy Hathorn and, really, seems to be nothing more than a memorial to a local journalist. I don't have access to many US-based newspapers online etc but I'm not seeing notability here. Sitush (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of many of the same kind of articles produced by Hathorn and his 100s of socks. Fails
WP:GNG and beyond th creator's edits, all the other edits are bots and minor maintenance. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Added some sources so I think we can have a stub. (non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarmad Sindhi

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

No coverage in

WP:NSINGER. Greenbörg (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Paul Morrissey

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

Quite a problematic when a person notability is defined by both science and entertainment world. I couldn't find sources that can show either of them. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. No pass of
WP:Prof. If kept the "Professor" should be removed from the Heading. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC).[reply
]

Delete notability claim not convincing; web-only sources. Agricola44 (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no credible claim of notability _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of anti-cannabis organizations

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

Arbitrarily lists organizations which are against drug use, not cannabis specifically. It's a bit absurd to list the DEA and the DEA museum as being anti cannabis organizations. I'm not sure what purpose this list could serve. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 10:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm open to suggestions for re-formatting to separate institutions like the DEA (anti-cannabis according to mandate) from other types of organizations. Clearly this list of organizations is incomplete. It might be a stub at this stage: So it could be expanded. But it is necessary to keep, the article was created in order to separate the DEA Museum and others that obviously did not belong at
List of cannabis organizations. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge into a
List of anti-drug organizations or similar. While advocating certain drugs can usually be separated by drug, opposition against drugs usually is not limited to certain kinds (and if it is, it can be noted in the list). Regards So Why 10:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I wouldn't support changing the name of the list to "anti-drug" organizations because many of them are supported by, or are themselves, manufacturers or sellers of legal drugs. An appropriate name would be
List of cannabis prohibition organizations, but that's not what they call themselves; Most of the sources refer to anti-cannabis; The headlines of the articles read "anti-pot groups" or "anti-marijuana organizations." Keep. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Useful navigational tool; topic of broad contemporary interest. Carrite (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disclosure: I created several of the entries on the list but not the list itself. The description as "institutions and organizations" is inapt, as it includes media campaigns and other stuff that doesn't fit the narrow definition. But I don't see a problem with the list that can't be fixed through the usual collaborative editing. If the strongest argument is that the
DEA Museum is not anti-cannabis, this seems hollow since a good part of the museum is in fact devoted to anti-cannabis messaging. What I see here is a need to go to the talkpage and more narrowly define the mission of the article, but to keep developing it under consensus. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. per

WP:SNOW. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Prime Number Distribution Series

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

This appears to be about a single mathematical paper, which is not published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, and which has not been the subject of significant coverage in independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But yet, if you were not to depend on memory usage then you cannot compute Pi(x)? Can you? STOP and THINK!

Delete per
talk) 14:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - As per nominator, this appears to be
original research, based solely on the author's non-peer-reviewed work. It has long been argued whether 1 should be categorized as a prime, but 2? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

But, if you were to sit the authors arguments against why 2 may not necessarily be a prime then you would have more substantive response than "jumping on the band-wagon". DO think for yourself, rather than being the sheep!

Delete. Pretty clear-cut case of OR, with the only reference being primary and self-published. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is nothing wrong with being the first inventor....!!!!

Delete We don't do "book reviews" of notable peer reviewed journal articles, let alone reviews of self-published material.Icewhiz (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is nothing wrong with being the first inventor....!!!!

Delete - without more independent coverage, this fails
WP:NPOV). I'm not sure if what the article says is true, and I agree with XOR'easter that FRINGE concerns may apply as well. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete As for me, the article (as well as its sources) is neither true nor false, since sometimes I fail to understand what is claimed. What is meant by "constant equal either to ... or to ..."? And more importantly, what is reported: a theorem? a numerical experiment? something else? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, you know nothing! Well, you speak like someone who knows nothing.... When you know something, please come back to share what you learnt. But, for now, go back to school....

Delete.
WP:FRINGE can be easily established (2 is not a prime, and in at least one section 9 is a prime under his rather fluid definition of prime!).--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: per nominator --EngiZe (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments above. Mgnbar (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These words spoken about above are those from those who wants to hide true science, as religion used to do for many centuries to pursue their own agenda, and may be classed as "bad losers". What I mean by that is, as you cannot have provided a formula as these guys behind PNDS have done, you did not win! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuclearstrategy8 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to improve your chances of success, then avoid such

ad hominem arguments. Also, the "unpublished and novel techniques" mentioned at the end of the article don't help, because we require Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Also, the current disorganized presentation doesn't help. For example, it's not obvious that the "prime number distribution series" is a series at all. Mgnbar (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Wrong! You cannot arbitrarily attack an article. You have to make sense, you have to learn the subject. You have to learn that prime counting function is a series that adds [] products. Unless you grasp these concepts you must not write nonsensical stuff. Take the C++ code provided, compile it, run it, study it and let the code speak! You don't wanna do the job? Then whatever you say has no significance! This work is one of its kind and only very elitist programmers can understand, as the CodeProject community illustrates! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuclearstrategy8 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to study, compile, and run C++ code off the Internet to verify a Wikipedia article's content. The article should explain itself. I don't know what "[] products" are (unless you mean

Lie brackets

), but fortunately the article does not appear to use them.

Even more important than whether the article is nonsense are the concerns about verifiability and original research raised above.

I see two possibilities for what's going on here. In either case, the article should be deleted. Mgnbar (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, unless you are so genius who understands every mathematical formula at one glance you have to sit and do the work... Are you such a person? What is more obvious is than your "two possibilities for what's going on" is that you must be receiving unlawful payments to remove an inventive article. Also, "Mgnbar" does not make any sense, you must not hide behind nicknames but reveal your true identity and your expertise in the subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuclearstrategy8 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Numbers is not an original research??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuclearstrategy8 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Pretty sound consensus.

(non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Shinjini Kundu

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

looks like the case of

WP:TOOEARLY. Can't find notability outside local Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 06:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 06:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Very few GS citations in a topic which attracts very many
WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC).[reply
]

Keep - Her awards and press clearly satisfy GNG. Keilana (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No sources sufficiently in-depth to satisfy

WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC).[reply

]

Keep: Sources have adequate depth for someone in a ground-breaking field and performing unique research. Multiple third-party coverage independent of subject. Montanabw^(talk) 23:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence yet in the citation databases of substantial achievement in in a ground-breaking field and performing unique research. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Keep added another source, meets
[majestic titan] 23:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Regarding the local notability concern (presumably Pittsburgh), I think the national Indian media sources linked in the article demonstrate broader prominence. Also, I'd say the televised national academic achievement award meets option (2) under
WP:GNG alternative. User:Umdunno 02:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:Academic#C2 refers to The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. This is taken to be of the prestige of a Nobel Prize or a Fields Medal. What award are you referring to here? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC).[reply

]

Oh, I didn't realize that's confined to awards of that sort. I was only thinking that the

WP:ANYBIO (1) kind of notability). User:Umdunno 23:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep (although I hate myself for saying it) This looks like a young, fairly average academic who has been elevated to the nirvana of media darling cause of some stuff she said. Sadly, that makes her notable and therefore worthy of a WP article. However, the article needs a cleanup. There's no point listing her publications. They aren't particularly notable and don't say anything about her so they aren't acting as supporting refs, just a CV. I'm sure she has a departmental webpage for this sort of stuff. Famous _dog (c) 08:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Under what policy do you advocate keep? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Keep The sources show she passes GNG. I don't care "why" she was noteworthy, the fact is she was and was covered. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines make it clear that it is the quality of the sources that contributes to notability, not the quantity. Therefore editors should care why people are noteworthy. Just being covered does not necessarily confer notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - prizes and media coverage. Hildabast (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LacyJane Folger

AfDs for this article:

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

Folger is just plain not notable. She was Miss New Hampshire USA, which is not a title that gives default notability. THere is not widespread coverage in reliable sources. In the previous deletion discussion people were persuaded to keep the aritcle because of multiple articles in an extremely local paper, or mention in a paper published by Wheaton College. College papers do not add to confering notability on school alumni. Local human interest stories do not add up to notability. My futher search revealed that she got married last year, and that one can find mention of this in commercial wedding listings, not at all a show of notability. There has been a major discussion on the notability of beauty pageant winners since this was last nominated, and the consensus has been that people with the level of sourcing as we see here with FOlger are just plain not notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I restored the article from a redirect on 13 August 2017‎, simply because consensus at the previous AfD discussion was for the article to be retained, not redirected. Prior to this recent restoration, it was redirected to Miss New Hampshire USA. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not widespread but sufficient coverage. Meets
WP:GNG. Kudos to North America for checking and executing community decisions. gidonb (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment John Pack Lambert, can you explain why you have removed all text from the article prior to this nomination? gidonb (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And why did you remove this wiki to the article from, perhaps, its most relevant location? gidonb (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - John Pack Lambert, and where do we find the community decision to delete this referenced article or even as little as just a warning that the article may be deleted one day in the future? gidonb (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - What leads you to think we need to secure permission in advance before executing a redirect of a NN subject, generally? You're certainly entitled to object, but he broke no rules to do so. Ravenswing 04:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hi
        vandalism here and the gradual dismantling of notability, only then starting the discussions, after for example removing core links or being caught red-handed obstructing our community decisions. More generally, John Pack Lambert has been a consistent voice against notability of pageants, which is of course OK per se. Many of his AfDs in this matter have failed. He has been restricted by our community in the number of AfDs he's entitled to submit, because the amount and frequency obstructed the encyclopedic work. Hence it is not the case that he is operating here in the center of the WP consensus. Under these conditions he should have taken much better care but keeps deleting and gradually undermining these articles circumferencing community consensus anyway. I don't believe in spite keep but think that people entering this discussion should know that several matters here contradicted the rules and may impact the fair chances of referenced articles to survive beyond what we see when clicking on links, reading an intro, or even the community decisions that roll out! gidonb (talk) 08:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        The vast majority of my nominations to delete articles on pageant participants have succeeded, because pageant participants at the state level are just not notable for that. What you are voting for is in fact a spite keep, and both of you are engaging in ahistorical analysis of what community consensus actually is. The clear decssions of the discussion last fall was that articles like this should be deleted or redirected, and I only ever attempts to redirect this article (which I did last fall) after multiple other editors said I should take that course instead of overwhelming the AfD discussions with formulaic nominations that would end with that result anyway. The whole history of beauty pageant contestant debates shows a few hard headed people ignoring even the most basic rules on what passes or does not pass the general notability guidelines to push articles on people with no notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really??? I support spite keep? I'll refer you to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica de Bruyn (2), once a beginning author who created an article (or someone who knew her did) on 2 Wikipedias at the very least. Then wanted these removed again and people got understandably upset. One day she wants it, the other she doesn't, they were not going to listen to all that. And kept the article. I said that this is the wrong approach because she wasn't notable (at least at the time) by WP standards and she never was until then. So I nominated the article and erased our spite keep that originated for some part at another WP where I believe she had also threatened with lawsuits if the article wouldn't be removed, maybe she did here as well (alluded to here). However, all that was irrelevant to notability. More importantly, whatever community decision would have been made, it was a proper procedure and would carry validity.

Here things are quite different. You erased not only the entire article but also links to this article before AfDing it. So once you open an AfD and people are really impressed by your opening statement and you added find sources on LacyJane Folger (whether automatically or manually) in this very procedure you are scamming the WP community. Twice really. Once by creating a false impression that there are very few links to this article and, if they care to click on the New Hampshire pageant article, very few misses have an article (however you removed these articles and/or their links).

The other time you are scamming the community by practically saying it doesn't mean sh*t what people think, or say, or decide, you alone have the fullest right to later undo it. Now look back and check that I asked you an open question. Why did you remove the text? I did not say you did wrong, you could have answered right away and have said I made a mistake or I have made mistakes for years and see how wrong I was. I wish you had. But after several days in which you are active on WP you decided to finally answer and claim that the educated opinions of

PageantUpdater, MissPageantNews, Materialscientist, MZMcBride, Waacstats, Ravenswing, Niceguyedc, Nakon, TiMike, Namiba, Northamerica1000

, and many other great Wikipedians should be removed.

Now this isn't the only case in which you decided single handedly that referenced articles should be erased by you as part of your crusade against pageants. But it was the boldest one that I encountered. In another case that I just rolled back you quietly erased the work of some of the same people and After Midnight, Ekaterina tony, Garion96, David Gerard, Aitias, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, Stephen, Xeno, CutOffTies, Strikehold, WOSlinker, Corlier who all worked hard to make this a successful WP article, some by writing extensively, others just by adding or removing a category, fighting vandalism, etc. We are a community, work together, and you do not decide for this community which knowledge is worthwhile to keep. Especially after you have been restricted because of your behavior in this field. gidonb (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is total nonsense that business people who create notable companies often don't get pages, solders that recieved almost top honors and maybe gave their life for their country don't get pages, actresses that have multiple but not staring roles don't get pages, academics and authors have a high threshhold of notability and yet in some twisted world a girl that won a good looks contest in a very small state and then went about her life again gets a detailed page. Community consensus has been that state winners DON'T get pages unless they are actually notable under some other area. Their name on a list of annual winners is sufficent. See
WP:NOPAGE for additional rational. I'm significantly more notable, locally famous, and have accomplished far more notable and lasting things then winning a contest and I would never suggest I should have a wikipedia page. This pageant stuff is just fancrut. Legacypac (talk) 08:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom and per my extensive debunking of the sources in the 2015 AfD (I note that no sources have been added since, so I'll let that one stand). That being said, as far as Legacypac's screed goes, c'mon. It is news to none of us that the fundamental base of notability on Wikipedia is not how worthy or important your work/life is (at least, in the eyes of your proponents), but whether or not the world has heard of you. However outrageous you find the premise, your average 1st round NFL draft pick has more press coverage than every Nobel Prize winner of the last year combined, and the likes of a Kim Kardashian increases that gap twentyfold. Bemoaning the priorities of our culture is editorializing that has little place here. Ravenswing 09:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pageants are such a nothing event now Miss Canada was cancelled. Apparently it was restarted but even though I consume a lot of news, I only realized it from Wikipedia. So ya, in Canada no one cares about pageant queens. Legacypac (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The references are mostly from local newspapers and pageant blurbs. And a photo in an article not about her. Fails GNG and BIO. Miss New Hampshire USA should not be confused with the better known Miss New Hampshire. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Miss USA pageant started in 1952 so it might be the lesser light but is mostly on a par with Miss America. See the AfD for Alexis Railsback. Unscintillating (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to ANI JPL attempted to redirect the article, and because he/she couldn't get his/her way is trying to get this article deleted. He/she has been repeatedly brought to ANI for behavioral issues related to AfD nominations. He/she has also been repeatedly reminded that deletion nominations for notability are not arguments for deletion if they
ignore the alternatives to deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: In your sinister scenario, perhaps you've overlooked the plainly obvious fact that several other editors, so far, likewise believe the subject is not notable. Ravenswing 06:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the procedure is seriously flawed. If you compare it to the facts in the article, in the former links, and where this AfD came from, the opening statement is so detached from reality that most people are just going to leave this page alone in disbelieve or talk about the form. About everything that JPL writes on this page is completely untrue. On top of that he also communicates that it doesn't matter that people say an article is notable, meets the
WP:INDEPTH, he can then still go and delete it all regardless of community decisions. Why would one even bother? gidonb (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, let's look at this, then. It's not just that JPL is saying that this article isn't notable, doesn't meet the GNG or WP:BIO, or that the sources are inadequate to support notability. Every other editor commenting here -- except for you -- says exactly the same things.
You've commented at great length as to why you believe you're right and everyone else is wrong, but the simple fact of the matter is that Wikipedia is governed by consensus; the nature of a consensus-based system is that sometimes consensus goes against you, at which point your only option is to lose gracefully and move on. The consensus is that state-level beauty pageant winners are not presumptively notable, and neither demonizing nor discrediting JPL will budge that consensus. It's time to move on. Ravenswing 12:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

pageants are essentially modeling contests. The subject is only (barely) known for her pageant participation and massively fails

WP:NMODEL. Legacypac (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Warning User:Gidonb has just massively ping canvased a lot of selected editors. If this page is not deleted I will take this behavior to ANi and seek the overturn of the result and sanctions against the canvessor. Legacypac (talk)
- Hehehe, I canvassed none of the people here or anywhere. Names were very relevant to the point I was making about the work people put into such a page. However, maybe others were canvassed? It is largely the same people attacking this subject matter on WP together. I don't do threats. Don't believe in it. It creates unnecessary stress for a closing person. Also, it should be clear to anyone that there is a huge disconnect between the quality and range of sources and opinions of pro-deletion opinions. That isn't new. In one of the previous discussions someone says just bring me one WP:INDEPTH source and I'll change my mind, Several are brought, by now a huge array of excellent sources. People don't follow suit. Claim nothing has changed. Can't convince those who came in already convinced. But sometimes what should be clear isn't clear. People come in with all sort of views. Actually look at the article and its strong sourcing. Or not. Have seen it all. gidonb (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of the publications I've heard of only contain passing mentions, but no indepth coverage. As it is, the only publication that has any real coverage is
WP:AUD. For the purposes of an encyclopedia, when someone is only known for winning a single arguably notable state pageant and automatically advancing to the next level, but for virtually nothing else, it's much more efficient and scalable to simply have the person listed as one of the winners or participants (at the next level), accompanied by a single source where interested readers can access the limited available biographical info. Had she done anything else out of the ordinary, additional info would be appropriate. In the 65 years of the Miss USA Pageant, if every state winner who participated was automatically considered notable, we'd have an additional 3,185 (65 x 49 states) articles on the site. BTW - I also went through the sources and marked a couple that were dead links. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, very local coverage only, "hometown girl makes good" sort of stuff. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Nivruttinath

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

Hindu saint. Unsourced since 2015 (

WP:N) and whether enough sources for a separate article exist or whether a merge/redirect to a related topic would be appropriate. Sandstein 09:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 19:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory search shows plenty of book mentions that aren't used as references in the article. Perhaps the article is lacking attention rather than notability Cesdeva (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Meets WP:GNG. Notability not in question, very well-known saint, a lot more can be included in the article. The article can be improved with well written, broad coverage and better referencing. Marathi wikipedia [[11]] is having an article. -Ninney (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep No doubt in notability, lot of local language books also exist on the person, although not "very famous" I think he passes notability criteria without any problem Shrikanthv (talk) 09:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clydach Farm Group

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

speedy declined so bringing it here...completely fails

WP:GNG non notable business which employs 12 people! Theroadislong (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

If it "completely fails" it, how come a news search brings up two hits? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK... is two hits enough to justify a stand-alone article? Theroadislong (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speedy decline was good, there is coverage in the Guardian, technically, but enough to bring it to AfD. Nothing here meets
WP:NOTSPAM anyway. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - just did a search and only found minor regional coverage. No evidence that it passes
WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy keep.

(non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Rashmi Singh (lyricist)

)

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

Fails

Arjit Singh and is just using singer's associations for promotional purposes. Umair Aj (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy Keep Article has Reliable source by

XfD. [reply

]

Comment: That accusation of being fan was baseless by nominator who has a history of vandalism and being blocked for sockpuppeting— Note to closing admin:

XfD

. Anoptimistix Let's Talk 12:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavian collage museum

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

fails WP:ORG. I found very little coverage for this. also given it's a converted bus shelter not sure how significant a museum it is. compared to other art museums we have in WP which tend to be well established buildings. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a (small) art museum. It's a public attraction. It's a roadside attraction. It is covered in newspapers and other sources. I notice numerous separate individual artists' resumes/webpages mentioning their showing pieces in exhibits there, and there is news coverage in Peru and other countries such as [http://mobi.peruthisweek.com/news-peruvian-collage-artist-participates-in-norway-show-111153/ this article in "Peru this week". Based on its apparently small size alone, I sort of question how monumental an achievement it is to exhibit there, and I think it is a service for Wikipedia to show exactly what it is, as a reference to persons trying to evaluate the artists' work for any reason. --do ncr am 04:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - interesting but not notable. No significant reliable sources are provided to suggest notability. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not intended to be a "service" for persons evaluating an artist's work.--Rpclod (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 00:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Did a search in a database of 100+ Norwegian media outlets. The museum is mentioned in one - 1 - news piece, the one in tiny Opdalingen which is cited in the current article. The museum has not gained any media attention whatsoever. Geschichte (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge and redirect to Berkåk. --Hegvald (talk) 09:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

disagree with merge as it's such a minor museum with close to no media attention. LibStar (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability beyond the limited sourcing in the article now. I can't even find an article on the Norwegian Wikipedia. [[12]] It's hard to argue that it's more notable over here than there. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against a redirect but I think for BLP reasons probably best we lose the content that's presently there. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gabi Grecko

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

Minor celebrity, largely cited to tabloid journalism thus completely violating

WP:BLPSOURCES. Couldn't find anything in broadsheet sources; a search for sources seems to largely return pictures of her in the Daily Mail that I'm glad my kids aren't looking at right now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons enumerated above, but probably with a redirect to Geoffrey Edelsten, who is at least a plausible redirect destination. I could make comments about coverage of people famous for five minutes, but I'm not convinced she's been famous for that long. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll go ahead with TOOSOON as well. Girls & Corpses?? Really. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a comment on this OldID from pre-2016? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabi_Grecko&oldid=672524079 L3X1 (distænt write) 00:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Clearly there are polarised opinions on this, and I don't think relisting will do any good. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Van Thyn

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

Fails

WP:GNG. Yet another Shreveport-related figure who might have local notability but nothing beyond that. One of many Shreveport bios created/maintained by a rather niche group of contributors - several others have recently been deleted. Sitush (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two articles in
The Shreveport Times does not notability make. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has eight sources, not two. Was a "Did you Know" in 2009. Subject fully notable.97.105.163.82 (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And your geolocation + interests suggests you are a sock of the banned Billy Hathorn The sources you reinstated were blogs etc. - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An oral history interview with Van Thyn is on file at the
WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

You're going to have to explain this to me. I don't see the significance of an oral history interview, nor an honorary degree - neither have ever counted towards notability in any article I've seen. The significance of other things you mention are just plain meaningless to me, perhaps because I am not in the US. - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AuthorAuthor: any chance you can explain, please? In particular, what is the Attaway Fellow thing and why is it significant in relation to notability? I think the oral history issue has been worked out (it doesn't contribute to notability). - Sitush (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found plenty of news sources in LA that document her life and achievements significantly. She passes GNG. Please see the article. I cleaned it up and added sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO1E applies. She was a holocaust survivor and all the media is driven off that. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The subject was a Holocaust survivor who, according to news sources, was a Holocaust educator. Over the years she was recognized for her service toward that effort. So, no, the media was not driven off of only surviving the Holocaust. If you read the sources, you will see that media was driven afterward by her Holocaust education efforts. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what? I've tried four times now to draft a response to that and each time I have had to stop because I just know someone will be waiting to shout "anti-semitism". Let's just say that your sources seem to be pretty poor: almost entirely one local newspaper that simply churns out what it is fed by people wanting publicity for a cause/event etc. That's the same the world over. She was a "local hero" as an educator, whoop-de-doo, but so is the headteacher of every primary school and their frequent mentions in local papers don't create notability. It is the event that fascinates in this instance, not the person. - Sitush (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: She was indeed a local hero, educator and Holocaust survivor. There is nothing in GNG that precludes local entries as long as RS cover them. She is covered extensively in two different LA newspapers. I'm not arguing to keep her just because of "anti-semitism:" she passes GNG. The news in these sources covering her isn't just routine--it's significant and starts as early as the 1990s and continues after her death. Not every educator is covered like that, nor are all survivors of the Holocaust. A named endowed chair at a college is named after her and she received other awards as well, showing that she wasn't just a "whoop-de-doo" run of the mill educator. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holders of named chairs are notable, not the person they're named after. Local heroes are not notable per se, hence why so many Indian bios get deleted and indeed, in part why so many articles such as this created by Billy Hathorn have gone - as Bearcat said in different circumstances, it is the local media's job to write about such people. - Sitush (talk) 07:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How would the holder of a named chair be notable, but not who they were named after? That doesn't make any sense at all. Dream Focus 16:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quite easily, actually. It only takes being rich or being liked enough by someone who is rich. Many named chairs are named after non-notable rich people's deceased parents or godparents. Not sure what the case is here, but having a chair named after you is an indicator of connection to wealth, nothing more. Re: the GNG argument above: the GNG is a guideline to which commonsense must apply. We routinely exclude local sourcing as according notability for biographies because, quite frankly, all you have to do to get it is call the paper. I don't have an opinion on the notability of the subject, but the keep arguments thus far are exceptionally weak, and I thought it worth pointing out. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, strong referencing. (Personal attack removed) --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing replies to a personal attack, which are no longer needed since I've redacted the PA. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:AGF. I don't, but you should. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Fuck off, Norton. You know nothing about me, my relations and friends. - Sitush (talk) 07:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't write the "I am not antisemitic, but ..." and "some of my best friends are Jewish" trite expressions, which you left on my talk page. It leaves the wrong impression. It still leaves the fact that you are trying to delete an article on a Holocaust survivor during the week of a Neo-Nazi gathering and murder. Maybe your hatred of Hawthorn Louisiana articles blinded you, but the optics are not good. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): We nominate articles for deletion all the time. It's an objective process. We don't ignore process because someone somewhere misconstrues it as a personal attack because they can't separate the actions of encyclopedia writers from what they saw on TV. I find it shameful that you attach these motives to Sitush. The fact that you doth protest too much evinces your lack of rationale. If the events around the world remove you from objectivity perhaps you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, at all. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been substantially improved since the nomination and the subject appears to have sufficient coverage to satisfy
WP:GNG. I encourage the lone "delete" !voter to review the revised article and reconsider. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This person is notable because of the coverage they receive, as well as the recognition of their work. Dream Focus 16:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have the time to search here like I would prefer for a biography, so refraining from actually !voting, but the article as currently stands is nowhere near meeting the GNG: the vast majority of the sourcing is from one publication, which only counts as one source per
WP:N, the guideline people always forget the GNG is contained as but one part of. Add on top of that we have it being a local paper? The oral history certainly doesn't count either: it's a primary source. Like local press, getting into an oral history library is very easy to do. There might be external sourcing that isn't in there, but what we have currently have is an obit for what seems to be a wonderful woman. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)≥[reply
]

Delete Doesn't pass
WP:GNG because she doesn't have "significant coverage in reliable sources" (plural). If someone can find significant coverage in a publication other than the Shreveport Times I will re-consider my !vote.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Clearly does meet
WP:GNG and has sourcing beyond just one newspaper. MarnetteD|Talk 18:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The article has changed immeasurably since I nominated it and, as I ususally say in noms of US-based stuff, I do not have access to many US newspapers. However, there is one heck of a
double-standard going on when US subjects can pass GNG based on mentions in local and perhaps regional media but Indian subjects are regularly failed unless they are mentioned in the nationals. India is, of course, a vastly more populous country. Something that the participants here might to reflect upon in future discussions, even if OSE applies. - Sitush (talk) 05:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Sure, if we analyzed the article as it stood before the nomination, I would probably !vote delete. However, a nice ol'
~~WP:BEFORE search and recent expansion is convincing enough for me.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)~~[reply
]

Changing to ~~weak delete~~ - Hang on a sec, Sitush has a point about the extent of the coverage. The majority of sources are from a localized newspaper which, in my opinion, fails
WP:DIVERSE.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 06:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 06:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Weak Delete. Article is well written and seemingly lots of sources. However they are all very local Louisiana sources - mostly Shreveport Times ("the Times"). Aside from that we have: another local paper from Alexandria ("The Town Talk"), PR news release from the Centenary College of Louisiana on the "Annual Rose and Louis Van Thyn Holocaust Lecture", and a "Oral history interview" in the Holocaust museum (which is both PRIMARY and ROUTINE - Holocaust museums have in recent decades attempted to interview any and all survivors willing to sit with them). I also managed to find a poetry book by her [13] (which doesn't seem to have received coverage). All of this is not enough by itself, additional book or national newspaper coverage is required.Icewhiz (talk) 07:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Icewhiz. While Holocaust survivors are famous in their local communities, if they do not have significant national coverage, they are not notable for Wikipedia. All these articles are from one local newspaper. She does not even have her own page at the Yad Vashem website. Yoninah (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, notability has not been demonstrated. There is a concerted lack of
velut luna 11:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The significant coverage in the regional Shreveport papers now cited in the article and which are independent of the subject satisfies
WP:BASIC. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
How so? BASIC satates "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other" - there are current two newspapers in the article. Multiple
The Times (Shreveport) articles, and a single piece (which is mainly an interview) in the Alexandria "Town Talk".Icewhiz (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Answered best by Smmurphy^(Talk) in the !vote immediately below this one. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - passes
creative professional (giving talks on her life), there is not a strong case, but her talk is kept at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and reviewed in those three papers. As for GNG, independent sources seems sufficient. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

This issue re: local sources is not a trivial point. If we accept the argument then every local town councillor, every parish councillor, many clerics at the lowest level, many minor local officials, political apparatchiks, headteachers etc would all meet the bar. At present, they do not and so the issue of coverage scope is implicit even if not explicit. As others have said above, it is incredibly easy to get in local news sources (I've done it umpteen times, and I've done it for other people, too) - their own bar is very low. And I am still narked that all the people coming here to argue it is ok never show up for the equivalent "local coverage is satisfactory" debates about biographies relating to Asia etc: it is incredibly US-centric and we're operating one rule for the US and another for everywhere else (broadly speaking). - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A number of years ago I was involved in saving a similar Holocaust-survivor article about a man who spoke all over Southern California. But that page was deleted due to local-only sourcing. Another time I had a health-food enthusiast on the West Coast whose page was saved from deletion because, in addition to all her local sources, she was once written up in The New York Times. We really need to have a clear and unambiguous rule as to what "significant coverage" and "broad sourcing" mean to deal with local news stories like this one. Yoninah (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I have a problem with the idea that suitability for inclusion in the encyclopedia is a fairly low bar, particularly for people who are no longer living. For some, particularly marginally notable living people, inclusion in wikipedia itself has a particular meaning that, if coverage is entirely local, may fall afoul of
WP:UNDUE, but I'm not sure. I generally only !vote at historical articles, but for what it is worth, I do !vote at numerous biographies relating to Asia, and am happy to point to them if you are interested. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Sorry for the confusion, Smmurphy. I know you participate in Asia-related AfDs. Mine was intended as a general point about how people do things and which seems to be repeating itself on this occasion. I could have made the same point in response to some other contributor to this discussion - I just opted for the most recent comment, which was perhaps lazy of me. Apologies. - Sitush (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I have a lot of respect for the work you do on CSB and Asian articles, at AfD and elsewhere. No offense was taken; I guess I felt like sticking up for myself even though I knew you were probably not specifically meaning me. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable per the
WP:IAR all indicate that we should keep this article. If it were to be "deleted" what this would actually mean is that the page would be put on the back shelves of wikipedia, where only administrators could read it. It would make no sense for this subject to be blacklisted so that the world could not have free access to this material which was voluntarily contributed. Andrew D. (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

As so often, you show a woeful ignorance of policy and a broad-brush approach to notability ("well, someone spent time creating it, so we should keep it). I'm intrigued by how many names associated with the Article Rescue Squadron are turning up, btw. Has that much-maligned project been revived? - Sitush (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:AGF please. And I'm self-marked on the Article Rescue Squadron and voted weak delete. ARS members watch AFD lists - it's not surprising (so do hardcore deletionists - it balances out). And sometimes there are good saves to be made - I made one this week - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Nicholson Barney which started out as [14] (you could understand why it was AFDed in that state) and morphed into - Joseph Nicholson Barney. Rescuing articles isn't about showing up and voting Keep everywhere (I do vote Delete!) - it is about finding sources. And then improving articles.Icewhiz (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

It was simply a question, based on the usual keep votes from Dream Focus and Andrew Davidson. ARS has (had?) a rather poor reputation and I thought had rather died a death after various scrimmages at ANI etc, with accusations that it was effectively a canvassing outfit and too many people were incessantly and unreasonably !voting keep. But that doesn't mean every single person who signs up for it is of the same temperament. One of the problems of the AfD system is that in many cases it can be gamed because, like it or not, people do tend to !vote count and a "no consensus" leads to the subject article being kept. Let's face it, neither Dream Focus nor Davidson have given worthy rationales here - it's just the usual stuff from them. I, too, have "saved" plenty of articles; in fact, my first big effort here was saving a contentious one and taking it to GA status. - Sitush (talk) 07:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article was never listed on the Rescue Squadron's wikiproject. I looked over things at AFD, and this is one of the ones I happened to click on. Dream Focus 09:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was listed there. I asked whether the project had been revived, given the appearance of some rather prominent members here. - Sitush (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The
WP:ANI. These lit up my watchlist for several days before I looked to see what all the fuss was about. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Andrew D. (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Sitush! Please don't personalise these AfDs in a negative way. Sorry to see another editor made an obviously untrue, but very offensive remark that could be interrupted as against yourself. But that is no reason to make negative remarks about editors who have behaved impeccably. We can't afford for folk like the Colonel or Dream to be driven away. (Speaking personally they are one of the few reasons I've not totally stopped editing due to all the unpleasantness that goes on here.) The impossibly cool DreamFocus has been an inspiration to other editors for over a decade. Checking his contribs, it looks like the Colonel was at Burlington House yesterday, attending a Royal Society event to encourage more women into STEM, and to encourage scientists and others to edit Wikipedia. The Colonel is frequently doing work like that. He presumably made his vote here to introduce newbies to AfD, an area many feel is neglected by sensitive editors due to excessive negativity. How is it going to appear to newbies if even the contribution of someone as impressive and scholarly as the Colonel is labelled as un "worthy"? FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding the sentiment about the unfair remark. As for myself, I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the Article Rescue Squadron. I do, however, take note of listings at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History mostly to see if I can add anything useful to lesser-known topics and to help get hoaxes deleted. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For avoidance of doubt, I reject Sitush's Weiner Library, I reckon I am quite well informed. My position is based upon the facts of the matter and is consistent with guidelines and policies, as stated. We have hundreds of articles about survivors of the Holocaust and concentration camps and so it's quite consistent and reasonable that we should include this one too. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Does not pass GNG, almost entirely sourced from small local newspaper. It could have 1, or it could have 100 refs, but if they are from the same source it doesn't indicate notability. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per
WP:Hey The article has been substantially improved since nomination by AuthorAuthor, Megalibarygirl and Richard Aurthur Norton. If only all articles at risk from deletion could benefit from such a dream team. The subject of the article lived through some of the darkest moments of history. She had the courage to risk reliving those memories again and again in her work as an educator. For her heroism she's received extensive coverage in multiple reliable sources , not just the Shreveport Times as some seem to suggest. A historic figure who is a slam dunk for passing WP:GNG. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm sorry but I am not seeing this "extensive coverage in multiple reliable sources." Could you give a few examples?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you've already seen the extensive coverage in several different Times article. This The Town Talk article is entirely about the subject and the way she puts her painfully vivid memories to good work as an educator (It's currently source no 5 in the article.). If you require further examples, inspect the article's various other sources or see Smmurphy's post above. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll have to disagree as to whether several different articles in the same local newspaper counts as more than one source. I was hoping for some coverage outside of the area in which she lived.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Local outlets have to fill minutes and inches and they often do these sort of human interest stories. Their journalism can be lacking especially when their reportage relies so heavily on what the subject says about themselves. If academics or journalists write more about the subject in another 50 or 100 years, we can write an article then. This is not a
vital article for us to have, so keeping the content I think does a disservice to both the project and the subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I appreciate you guys making efforts to be agreeable, but as the fate of such an important article is at stake, I'm going to have to suggest some inaccurate assertions may have been made by the delete side. First it doesn’t matter whether multiple Times articles count as one source - the subject has extensive coverage in other independent RSs , so all the criteria of GNG are met. Second, while non local coverage is not required, this woman has received coverage internationally and across the US. For example source 16 currently in the article is to the Memorial Museum in Washtington, quite a trip from Louisiana. Third, suggesting that it does Wikipedia a disservice to host articles that don't qualify as WP:vital is the most far out view I've seen in all my years at AfD. The m:Vision of this project is to work towards a world where folk can " share in the sum of all knowledge". All knowledge, not just the tiny subset that qualifies as vital. I'm so glad young ANobody isn't here - he must already be so stressed due to Charlotteville, if he saw this argument he might literally have a heart attack.

A case can even be made that this qualifies as vital, albeit in an IAR sense. We've talked enough about her historic and educational role, she also seems to be globally recognised as a seamstress. Ranker have here as the no 5 dressmaker in the world. Take a look at this Storify of yesterday evening's Royal Society of Chemistry event to reduce sexism on the Internet which was mentioned above. If you go to the final slide, you can see all the well dressed women who were learning to edit Wikipedia. It's not all high minded talk at a Royal Society event, it would be quite typical to have a conversation like this: Anna:"I love your dress! Who's it by?" Sasha: {trying to sound casual} "Oh it's by Rose van Thyn" Anna: "OMG!! Rose van Thyn! She one of the world's top 5!" Others hearing this conversation might look up Rose on the internet. Imagine how embarrassing it would be if they find out that not only is she one of the world's top dress makers, but also received local, national and international coverage for her poems, for being a historic figure, and for her role as an educator - yet somehow she's not considered worthy of a Wikipedia bio? Certain conclusions could be drawn. All that said, of course we can agree to disagree if your opinions are still for delete. I better not say anymore on this AfD , maybe I've already said too much, but hopefully this does help indicate some additional reasons why it's desirable to keep this article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FeydHuxtable if she's such a notable seamstress, why isn't that mentioned in the lead or article? That would certainly make her notable. Yoninah (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. It's been added to the lede & body that she was a professional seamstress. I didn't directly say she was notable as a dress maker however - just like a bestselling book can fail GNG if it doesn't get sufficient elite reviews, a top seamstress isn't necessarily notable. Rather ridiculous, but this is not the place to try to change policy. Ranker is fine to add some context to project or talk space discussions, but Im not sure it's RS enough to make strong claims in article space. Pointing to the recognition she's received as a seamstress was just an IAR attempt to make a fresh appeal to editorial discretion.

The policy based heart of the keep case is the notability she's acquired for historical experiences like surviving a death march, and her 40+ years as an educator. That she decisively meets all the criteria of GNG has been explained by many editors. As per Cedric Glover her passing was a tremendous loss "to the entire world". Let's not add insult to injury by destroying her article. I hope this helps, but please can I request Im not further queried for this AfD? I don't like ignoring folk, but also don't like to talk for more than my share. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete (I was pinged to take a look) all coverage appears to be in the local, small city daily newspaper. Ping me to return if someone can find better sources, but no matter how interesting a bio is, or haw admirable the individual, a topic needs better sources to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at old news coverage, I see that the Chair named in her honor by
WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Coverage is not "merely local," it is significant, third party, independent of the subject. Doesn't mean it has to be in the New York Times, let's not exceed the parameters of the guideline. This individual clearly meets GNG by multiple criteria. Montanabw^(talk) 22:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG, sufficient reliable sources over time to prepare a comprehensive biography of the subject. There are sources other than newspapers and other than local, though there is nothing in the guidelines that precludes local sources from being used. This [15] discusses her as being part of the sterilization experiment victims. This is an encyclopedia entry [16] which has been curated. (Note: I have no access to this [17] and though it is self-published, if it has notes to reliable sources, it might be useful as well. Not counting in my weight of evidence as the source is unavailable to me.) SusunW (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mentions, as well as SPS? - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Number 3 - page 8... I'm afraid I don't see how this establishes notability, she was just interviewed, and doesn't mention much about her, other than her presence; it's a good source for her presence there, but doesn't establish notability. Number 4 - a curated encyclopedia article? It's literally a copy of the Wikipedia article! That's very circular, and obviously not a valid source. 5 - self published by her family, after her death? That's also not normally considered a reliable source, let alone proof of BLP. Yes, there may well be something in there, that leads to something else that does establish BLP. But someone would have to do some work. Nfitz (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Centennary College seems to regard her as notable enough to name an endowed professorship after her. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or, more likely, the money was given on that condition, as someone has said above. I don't think the recent keep !voters have read the prior discussion, so we're going round in circles here. - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You insult someone's accomplishment with a slanderous rumor you pulled out of nowhere apparently, that someone paid for her to have that honor. That is ridiculous. She was obviously well thought of so it not unusual they would give her that honor. Dream Focus 17:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, looking at articles in a news archive it is clear that the Van Tyne Professorship was funded via a public campaign; not, as is is more usually the case, named by or after a large donor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that, EMG. Dream Focus - you should know that it is not possible to libel the dead (and it would be libel, not slander). - Sitush (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage is light but the endowed chair, honorary doctorate and Liberty Bell award tip the bio to sufficient notability. Also feel obliged to point out the curious double-standard of the OP's umbrage at being accused of antisemitism while he/she twice accuses Wikipedia in general of having an anti-Indian bias in regards to deleting Indian bios. TheValeyard (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No double standard,
velut luna 13:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
That user does not appear to be blocked, and there is the scantest of mentions of India in the cited essay, certainly nothing that proves of concludes an anti-Indian bias. So, 0-for-two on those claims. TheValeyard (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing new to add to the above except Jeez pick on someone else! --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lane Crockett

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

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

Seems to fail
WP:GNG. The best hope for notability appears to be some sort of syndication around local newspapers but I'm not seeing that as significant, nor any other useful sources. This is one of many articles created/maintained by a small group of people with an intense interest in Shreveport-related matters and, I'm afraid, the list of those articles is getting shorter as the non-notables hit AfD. Sitush (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails
WP:GNG. This is another Billy Hathorn effort, so odds are it should have never been written. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't even see a valid claim of notability in the article. Being syndicated isn't enough on its own to confer notability. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 09:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Qualifies as a Gannett syndicated columnist (No. 3 below) and Shreveport Times Journalist (regional No. 2 below). From Wikipedia guidelines:

A journalist may be demonstrated as notable by meeting the central notability criterion, which is that the subject has been covered by multiple sources which are independent of the article subject and are reliable. Journalists may also be notable for other reasons including: The subject is a senior staff writer, editor, or columnist (sports, arts and entertainment, etc.) at a major news source including: 1. A notable internet magazine (webzine) (See: WP:WEB) 2. A notable regional, national, or international newspaper or magazine (such as The Detroit Free Press, The New York Times, or Time) Subject is a main personality on a notable regional, national, or international news telecast or radio show (such as CNN, BBC, or NPR) 3. The subject is the writer of a nationally syndicated column (such as Dear Abby) 12.247.112.50 (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (journalists) (which you're quoting) is a failed proposal from ten years ago. It doesn't represent consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Geolocate suggests that the anon may well be Hathorn evading his ban. Similarly located anons have popped up at other recent AfDs involving Hathorn creations and he is known to have used an extensive range of IPs. -

Delete Nauthor and GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_August_14&oldid=1142223891"