Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 8

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 7 December 9 December >

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. As Ian has copied the article and shared it with the instructor, there's no need to userfy this. Randykitty (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Five Aspects Scale

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

This article is a rehash of

fork. 1l2l3k (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

House Boulevard

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

Article about a Brazilian musical group since it's creation (December 2009) lacking sources. It lacks sources at pt.wiki too. —Pórokhov Порох 21:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 11:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagavad Gita (Yogananda)

Bhagavad Gita (Yogananda) (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)

None of the sources that are independant ("jharkhandstatenews", "telegraphindia") have any indepth coverage to meet

WP:GNG. I have not been able to find any indepth independant coverage. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Independant source as example
talk) 10:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
In the fast further source
talk) 10:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The sources don't have any indepth coverage on the book - just one or two sentences at most. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They have more.--
talk) 11:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment: I've found a three-page review of the book in The Bhagavad-Gita for the Modern Reader: History, Interpretations and Philosophy (Routledge, 2017), which stresses the importance of Yogananda's interpretation: [1]. It also gives the correct original publication date, which is 1995. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets
    WP:NBOOK. After correcting the title to God Talks with Arjuna I have found at least three extensive reviews of the book in publications that are independent of the subject. So far: (1) A three-page review of the book in The Bhagavad-Gita for the Modern Reader: History, Interpretations and Philosophy (Routledge, 2017), which stresses the importance of Yogananda's interpretation: [2]. (2) An extensive review in Yoga Journal: [3]. (pp. 118–123). (3) A two-page review in the International Journal of Yoga Therapy: [4]. There are other reviews also available, but it will take some further Googling to get the full reviews rather than snippet quotes. Softlavender (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Nowhere does anyone state that the book has "revolutionized the field" of yoga therapy. -- Softlavender (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Softlavender's hard work. Agree with the "massively revise" suggestion of Shibbolethink, but AfD isn't for cleanup, so this requirement is not a part of my !vote (though still encouraged). --DannyS712 (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Some arguments convincing enough have been made in favor of keeping this article. Since there is no reasonable merge target, merge does not seem likely at the moment. Tone 18:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Cary (valet)

John Cary (valet) (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)

A black "body servent" to George Washington name checked by Twain and listed very implausibly as being 114 in an 1843 almanac which does not seem like a very well researched or scholarly publication hampered by the difficulty of doing research in the time period. The subject probably lived and died, but did nothing notable. Fails

WP:GNG and is almost certainly a case of Age fabrication. Legacypac (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep This meets
    WP:ANYBIO #3, The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication (in this case, Appletons' Cyclopaedia of American Biography [5]). If it is an example of an old biography which may have dubious content, then the article needs work to reflect that, but it shouldn't be deleted. Boleyn (talk
    ).
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A click away from the bio is this disclaimer [6] which surely applies to this short bio making an extraordinary claim. Legacypac (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of additional sources how can we fix what must he an error? Legacypac (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When petitioning for a
Appletons' Cyclopædia was published in 1887–89. Cary died 175 years ago and the exact year of his birth may never be discovered. The Wikipedia article does not accept his purported year of birth at face value, indicating that "Cary claimed that he was born in Westmoreland County, Virginia, in August 1729". The stub does not mention Appletons' Cyclopædia, but it can certainly be added that his entry in the Cyclopædia repeated the age claim.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Is the overstatement by 20 years sourced? Our page flatly accepted the birthdate until just hefore this AfD when I tagged it as dubious. Legacypac (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources apparently easily accessible at this time are the ones listed. The contention that he overstated his age in falsely portraying himself as a supercentenarian when applying for pension is, indeed, only a contention which deserves to be noted in the Wikipedia article. However, his listing in the Cyclopædia, especially in view of the extreme rarity of such an entry for an African-American during that era, distinctly qualifies him for Wikikpedia.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Demi (DJ)

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

Fails

WP:MUSICBIO. Little coverage in reliable secondary sources. Sources cited in the article appear to be prepared bios which accompany ticket sales, or primary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: talented DJ, and is still doing the rounds, both under his original name and also making records with a new alias, ASOY. But he's always been fairly low-key – his Deeper Substance parties and label releases in the early 2000s made his name on the dance scene, he became the warm-up act for Danny Tenaglia at the legendary Twilo club in New York, and then as part of the SoS collective with Omid16B and Desyn Masiello the trio created a three-hour Essential Mix for BBC Radio 1 in 2006, which is probably as close as Demi has got to gaining mainstream attention. In the last ten years the music work has been scaled back and he's taken on other projects, such as becoming Tenaglia's tour manager. Much as I personally admire the subject's past work, it's going to be difficult to find any in-depth independent sources to save this article. Richard3120 (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Consensus appeared delete but page already deleted by admin

(non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Nobul Corporation

Nobul Corporation (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)

CSD A7 candidate as there is no claim of significance. Speedy contested without proper reasoning. I am sensing signs of UPE too. Fails on

WP:ORGCRITE. Google searches are full of PR and lacks significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Hitro talk 19:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Per nom. Only press releases found online. - ToT89 (talk) 05:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TOOSOON Tone 18:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daria Lopatetska

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

Non-notable tennis player who fails to meet

WP:NTENNIS. Adamtt9 (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural Keep. Page has been listed at

π, ν) 03:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Huge Ackman

Huge Ackman (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)

A silly redirection page that is unlikely to be used. (Note also that nothing links to this.) Ross Finlayson (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment about venue: Proposals to delete redirects are handled at
    talk) 23:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Sorry, I didn't realize that; thanks for letting me know. I've just resubmitted the deletion request to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (and closed this one). Ross Finlayson (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Speedy keep is appropriate, given that no valid rationale is presented--and the arguments that were presented simply make no sense. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Chabahar suicide bombing

2018 Chabahar suicide bombing (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)

Low number of casualties by the standards on the region. Half the references are from Iranian state media "journalists" Openlydialectic (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per
    WP:RAPID. Low number of casulties is not a criteria, and the regime target here may be significant for lasting coverage. At this point we have wide international coverage and the sole notability question going forward is whether it will be SUSTAINED - which we can not determine at this point, therefore we should err on the side of keeping the article per RAPID.Icewhiz (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: It's one of the most weird AFDs I've ever seen, grounded on "Low number of casualties" and usage of Iranian sources instead of considering deletion policies. Anyway, there are plenty of reliable sources dealing with this subject. --Mhhossein talk 16:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:SKCRIT #3? Regards. --Mhhossein talk 16:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Alan Sked. Randykitty (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prosper UK (political Party)

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

non-notable political party established five minutes ago. Tagishsimon (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Alan Sked for now. If it gets significant and prolonged media coverage then we can revisit this later. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Alan Sked until there is no doubt regarding notability. Rzvas (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per DanielRigal and Rzvas until the party is recognized by the Electoral Commission (United Kingdom) as a registered political party Bkissin (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as suggested above as at the moment it cannot be classed as a significant party (for instance no elected politicians have joined it) and there is no guarantee yet that it will be. Dunarc (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect It can merge into to Alan Sked Alex-h (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • PLEASE DELETE This article is factually inaccurate. The name of the political party is WRONG - as is the subsequent page title - and the content is entirely inaccurate. See: [1] and [2]. MajorPlonquer —Preceding undated comment added 10:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.PROSPERuk.party
  2. ^ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-steven-woolfe-brexit-timeline-party-key-events-a7348116.html
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 Smosh. Tone 18:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Padilla

Anthony Padilla (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)

An edit-warring which involved many users (but not me) is ongoing in this article over whether it should exist individually or as a redirect. The arguments of the users reverting to a redirect are that the subject is not notable separately from Smosh. Bringing it here, since without a careful AfD consideration the edit-warring will last forever. Ymblanter (talk) 08:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 09:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 09:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge I recommended redirecting or merging for now. PlotHelpful (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Anti-statism

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

This page is unnecessary and a violation of WP:SOAP

The sole purpose of this article is to gerrymander the scope of the term

Pornocracy, for instance) Social anarchists may not agree with them — and they don't have to! — but that doesn't mean they aren't anarchists too, in their own logic. After all, the reason why social anarchists are anti-capitalists is because, ultimately, they see capitalism as an extension of the state. So even to them, anarchism = anti-statism (if that's even a word!). WisdomTooth3 (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep widely used concept in the literature, distinct from
    Stuartyeates (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It looks to me that sources generally make a firm distinction between anti-statism and anarchism. In fact, in this field, it looks like it's about the only thing they do agree on.
    • Friedberg, In the Shadow of the Garrison State: America's Anti-Statism and Its Cold War Grand Strategy [7], defines anti-statism as "the body of ideas and arguments used by those who have opposed efforts to increase the size and strength of the executive branch of the federal government". This is different from wanting to abolish the state or government altogether.
    • Nash, Freedom, Justice, and the State [8], defines two types of anti-statism: radical and moderate. Radicals oppose all states while moderates oppose only some types of state. According to Nash, even the radicals are not always (but often are) anarchists. The moderates are quite distinct from anarchists.
    • Gallaher et al., Key Concepts in Political Geography [9] says "Anti-statist movements want to limit the influence of any state". They may, or may not, want to eliminate it altogether.
    • Cox, & Stokes, US Foreign Policy [10], says "Anti-statism and the fear of despotism led the American founders to create a state structure that is fragmented, decentralized, and accountable." Their following discussion of American anti-statism is entirely focused on it wanting to limit the power of the state, not abolish it.
    • Clark, Living Without Domination: The Possibility of an Anarchist Utopia [11], explicitly states that anarchism is not synonymous with anti-statism; "So, anti-statism is not a distinguishing characteristic of anarchism."
SpinningSpark 16:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.S.F.Patil

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

The page reads like a CV copied and pasted onto Wikipedia. Autobiography/COI. Previously CSD'd under G11. Cahk (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete executive directors of some functions of a university are not inherently notable. No actual sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why are so many new articles being sent to AfD within a few days of being created, in this case the same day? Yes, the quality of the article is poor, its format is inappropriate, and it doesn't have references. But is the subject of the article notable? He has an Award for outstanding teaching & research in Radiochemistry; he is a Nominated Eminent Scientist on the Governing Body, Maharashtra Association for the Cultivation of Science, and has apparently "Initiated new lines of research: Hot Atom Chemistry, Radiation Chemistry of Solutions/Solids, Activation Analysis, Color Centers in Halide Solids, Luminescence in Alkali Halide Crystals, Diffusion in Aqueous Solutions/Solids using Labeled Isotopes and Conducting Polymers". Don't those claims suggest that he may indeed be notable, and it is the article which is lacking? What about
    WP:ATD? RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Maybe he would be notable as an academic, but it seems the article was written by the same person.I did a search on google scholar, and it seems there are quite a lot of papers written by SF Patil, not sure if its the same person in all of them. but only one of of those papers was cited by more than 100 people(231 to be exact), all others have less than 65 citations. Daiyusha (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TOOSOON. No prejudice against recreation at some point in future. Tone 18:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dory Nason

Dory Nason (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)

A few mentions found in searches, won a minor award, fails

WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 TT me 12:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 19:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If somebody wants to take a shot at writing Murder of Sara Tokars , any admin can restore the contents of this for reference. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Tokars

Mike Tokars (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)

Lacking notability beyond

WP:BLP1E. References mostly consist of passing mentions of the subject with no significant coverage or are articles authored by the subject who now works as a journalist. One Where Are They Now style reference has a focus on the subject. This is an autobiographical article that continues to be heavily edited by the subject. Longhair\talk 04:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Longhair\talk 04:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Biography-related deletion discussions. Longhair\talk 04:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possible re-purpose to Murder of Sara Tokars (the murder itself seems to be a rather clear NCRIME pass). The 4 year old son (with bits of coverage of the "where is he now" - [12] - is not notable). Icewhiz (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 11:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Rakhmatulina

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

Non notable. No reliable and significant coverage. ToT89 (talk) 10:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Text to Voice (Firefox)

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

Non-notable Firefox extension, seems to be created under COI by "Vikramjoshi.iit", who also appear to have created this extension. There's absolutely zero reliable sources to support this article, failing

WP:GNG. theinstantmatrix (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritual (Oomph! album)

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

Fails

WP:NALBUM there is one review of the teaser and this is not enough to show it meets the notability criteria. This should be a redirect to the group's page until there are multiple non trivial coverage of this album. The article creator has removed the redirect twice now without adding the required coverage. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not read the top of the page? I've added in SEVERAL magazine articles covering the release of the album, not just the Overdrive Magazine version. As well as the two sources that I was in the process of adding when you nominated the page for deletion, I've also got the following posts:
http://bravewords.com/news/oomph-reveal-new-album-details-teaser-for-kein-liebeslied-single-posted
http://www.side-line.com/oomph-unveil-title-teaser-tracklist-and-artwork-of-new-album/
http://www.roooar.com/music_uk/news-releases-oomph--ritual-cd-in-january-8553.html
https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/community_feed/oomph_reveal_details_of_new_album_ritual_preview_new_single_kein_liebeslied.html
That makes at least half a dozen independently published articles regarding the release of this album. How many more do you want before I pass the eligibility criteria? Eddiehimself (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of brave words it's all routine stuff about an announced album that contain a trck list and at best a quote from the group. brave stuff does not cover the album itself but is more about the group and a single than anything else there is no review of the songs on the album and they do not seem to have received a copy and only the teaser and this is still routine. Not enough in my opinion to meet
WP:FUTUREALBUM. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Well your opinion clearly differs from what Wikipedia says about Future album releases:
"generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label.
Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources. Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release. For example, a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should be discussed only in the artist's article, and even then only if there is some verifiable information about it."
In this case, the album, track listing, and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist, and independent sources. So regardless of your opinion, it definitely DOES meet the criteria for WP:Futurealbum.
Also, what's this business about the articles cited being 'routine?' A control+F search of Wikipedia's Music notability page reveals that the word 'routine' isn't mentioned once on the entire page. It's completely unfair to nominate an article for deletion on the basis of something that isn't even present on the notability criteria pageEddiehimself (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:ROUTINE
.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. While I can't say the coverage is resplendent, in a couple of citations the subject is treated in sufficient detail to establish notability. Contrary to the discussion above, I found overdrive detailed enough and to be a secondary source of satisfactory reliability. I would be content with merging the principal details into the band's main article (redirect).
     ■ 22:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak keep. Bad quality, but all the problems can be solved.
    WP:NALBUM is fine here. Coltsfan (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irshu Bangash

Irshu Bangash (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)

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines

Wikipedia:DIRECTOR
and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful.

Previously it was declined numerous times at Draft:Irshu Bangash by @Miniapolis and Chetsford:. Saqib (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 08:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 08:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 08:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom for failing notability guidelines at
    WP:DIRECTOR. Some films may be notable but notability is not inherited, the article's subject is not the focus of any references. Ifnord (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete.

π, ν) 03:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

GOBA Foundation

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

Non-notable company, fails

hundreds 07:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wale Aladejana

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

Does not meet

WP:NBIO. Sources provided are unreliable, and even if they were reliable, they do not provide significant independent coverage of the subject, and mostly include photos of the subject at various publicity events as well as quotes. I originally submitted this for PROD, dePROD by RebeccaGreen. Here is the Google search that I did of the subject, before nominating it for PROD: [13] Not a single of those is significant coverage in a reliable source. If you search on Google proper, you get a bunch of less reliable sources and Youtube videos made by the subject. signed, Rosguill talk 06:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The sources are of poor quality, they are either puff pieces from likely unreliable sources or are about the company rather than him. My limited experience when looking at Nigerian websites is that many don't do the most basic fact-checking. My inclination is therefore for a delete, although I will wait to hear from someone with a better understanding of Nigeria websites before deciding. Hzh (talk) 11:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This list may be of some use. signed, Rosguill talk 18:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On another search, I would agree that the coverage (under either version of his name), although significant, is not reliable and is often not independent, either. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As opposed to the list for the US presidents, this one has zero sources so it is hard to argue that it is not OR or SYNTH. Tone 18:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of living Prime Ministers of Sweden

List of living Prime Ministers of Sweden (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)

Similar case to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Prime Ministers of Australia, trivial article that is a list of various tenures of PMs of Sweden and the number of former PMs alive during that tenure.Unlike the Australian page, this sweden page has no corresponding "List of PMs by age" page. Creating a page for the "list of PMs of sweden by age",and deleting this page, might be more in tune with an encyclopedia in my opinion . Daiyusha (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt,the age lists do not show the same info, but other than the "list of former PMs alive right now", its not very likely someone would try looking for number of former PMs alive during a particular year. Daiyusha (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wook Kundor

Wook Kundor (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)

Thoroughly unremarkable and stunningly implausible longevity claim. This borders on self-parody, almost the entire "article" consists of some truly bizarre marital issues (with far more credulous reporting than is warranted, Elizabeth Taylor had nothing on this lady!). There's

WP:NOPAGE here, if this is really notable enough for a mention anywhere it's best handled on the Longevity claims article in a list. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails
    WP:ROUTINE, even though her situation certainly has its own unique flavor. There is not enough to say about her of substance to justify a standalone article. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - One of those who were known only for claiming themselves to be oldest or very old. This is similar to other few recently nominated articles. These subjects lack significant coverage especially when we take their extraordinary claims into account. Rzvas (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - BLP1E/BLP2E lacking in-depth coverage. Mainly covered for her marriage at age 104 and 107 - same coverage is rehashed in a few books. Coverage is not INDEPTH. Possibly merge to an article on bizarre marriages if we have one - but can't think of target - and this is rather gossipy. Icewhiz (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Israel

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

I'd PROD this, but there is technically a first AfD here. Despite the puffery in the article there's no evidence that this is "one of the most widely reported longevity claims in recent years", and in any event it only states that she was born, lived for some indeterminate time, and died. Once stripped of the filler material about Guinness and the GRG, there's clearly

WP:NOPAGE here; the claims about her birth and death dates are best handled on a list in the Longevity claims article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails
    WP:PERMASTUB is not needed in an encyclopedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The actions of the boosters who engaged in promoting her longevity claim might make them notable, but Israel herself is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - One of those who were known only for claiming themselves to be oldest or very old. This is similar to other few recently nominated articles. These subjects lack significant coverage especially when we take their extraordinary claims into account. Rzvas (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Johnson (supercentenarian)

George Johnson (supercentenarian) (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)

Longevity claim with almost no substance. Once stripped of all the irrelevant filler material about other old people and the verbose circumlocutions about his military service, we're left with a few news outlets mistakenly claiming he was the last WWI vet.

WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Relisted twice without any further comments, no consensus reached.

(non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Daniel Madland

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

Not independently notable – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 02:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 06:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 06:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 06:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi support of Baloch rebels

Iraqi support of Baloch rebels (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)

Redundant since we already have Insurgency in Balochistan#Iraq and 1973 raid on the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan. Furthermore, the sources have not provided enough coverage to this subject that a stand alone article would be warranted. Orientls (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Redundant
    WP:CFORK -- this article's content is already covered in other named articles. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rytasha Rathore

Rytasha Rathore (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)

Editor created an article for herself (delete nom), her father (deleted), and in this article, her sister. Rytasha Rathore seems borderline notable due to her role in a Hindi serial, but considering the editor's close connection to the subject, some additional scrutiny is necessary. —Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article requires improvement but she seems to be a notable actress Spiderone 09:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - actually I can't find much evidence of notability Spiderone 18:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing notability guidelines at
    WP:NACTOR. Ifnord (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Joe Campbell

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

I could not establish that he meets

WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable. He was in 182 episodes of one show over 8 seasons on a major network. So recognizable they used him in character to explain how TV's worked. Rmhermen (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has had some notable roles and as had several independent reliable source news sources cover him in detail so meets the GNG. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
    GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per
    WP:NACTOR guideline, which expects multiple major (significant) roles, but he has many guest or recurring roles across a number of TV series in the years since According to Jim. All that appears to sum up notability on NACTOR grounds (especially with all the seasons he was on According to Jim), even if it may not technically meet point #1 in the guideline. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Main role for 8 years is pretty significant in my opinion. I know
    WP:BASIC (and intent of NACTOR) but article needs work to include those references. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

Byzantism. Should anyone see anything worth merging, the article history is still there. Michig (talk) 08:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Byzantine complexity

Byzantine complexity (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)

Dictionary definition. Zero references Openlydialectic (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Byzantinism. Agree with the logic above, but with no sources whatsoever, there's nothing to merge. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. bd2412 T 02:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Hughes (supercentenarian)

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

Another non-notable oldster. Though the article claims she received public recognition, the lack of sources gives the lie to the idea that, apart from her one meeting with Margaret Thatcher, it was anything other than

WP:NOPAGE; maybe a minibio on List of British supercentenarians, but certainly not a full article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This nomination seemed to be based on a justifiable exasperation with the GRG's habit of spewing cruft, rather than on a proper examination of the topic. Neither the nominator nor any of the other editors commenting give any indication of having done any
    WP:BEFORE
    research at all.
Additionally, I taker issue with the nominator's assertion that Hughes was the oldest person in an arbitrarily defined geographical area. She was in fact the longest-lived person ever in the United Kingdom, which is major OECD nation rather than an arbitrarily defined geographical area.
The article probably meets
WP:GNG
as it currently stands, since there appears to be at least two substantive articles on her: BBC and Guardian.
However, it was a trivial exercise to find more sources in The Times archive and in Newsbank:
  • Paul Wilkinson. "UK's oldest person dies at 115." Times [London, England] 18 Mar. 1993: (~200 words)
  • "Widow, 110, flies on." Times [London, England] 5 Aug. 1987: 2. (~60 words)
  • "110-year-old Charlotte Hughes loves the Big Apple" Newswire August 5, 1987 | UPI NewsTrack bAuthor: DON MULLEN | Section: News 368 Words
    • "A Supersonic Birthday" Newspaper August 5, 1987 | San Francisco Chronicle (CA) Page: 3 | Section: NEWS 51 Words
    • "110-year-old English woman visits New York" NewswireAugust 5, 1987 | UPI NewsTrack Section: News 429 Words
  • "Loyal customer" - Charlotte Hughes Newspaper September 14, 1991 | Times, The (London, England) Section: Home news 35 Words "Charlotte Hughes, aged 114, believed to be Britain's oldest person, had 100 years' of custom with Barclays Bank in Middlesbrough marked by a message from Sir John Quinton, its chairman, and a gift of a Victorian sovereign"
  • "115 TODAY..THANKS TO BACON, EGGS AND BRANDY" NewspaperAugust 1, 1992 | Daily Mirror, The / The Sunday Mirror (London, England) Author: STEPHEN WHITE | Page: 7 | Section: NEWS 254 Words
There may be more; I gave up checking the hits once I had the list above. But with all that lot, she more that meets GNG. Hughes had clearly been receiving bouts of significant coverage for at least 7 years before her death.
A decade ago, there was a steady stream of GRG-dervied articles on clearly non-notable people. Sadly, it now seems that the pendulum has swung the other way, and that some deletionists are chucking articles into AFD without doing the required preparation. @The Blade of the Northern Lights, would you please be kind enough to withdraw this nomination? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All countries are arbitrarily defined geographical areas, I'm hardly the biggest Yuval Harari fan but he's absolutely right on that. I'd be OK with a minibio, but how does the material add up to a full article? She lived a long time, and died. It doesn't take a standalone article to express as much. Plus, merging her to the list of British supercentenarians is more informative; there's plenty enough space to give her a minibio, and then readers will be much more readily able to find out more about other old British people (and learning about old British people, presumably, was why they'd search for her in the first place, because she's not notable in any other way). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. The boundaries of countries are usually defined by geographical features and/or by the outcomes of wars. Mountains, oceans and huge piles of dead human bodies are hardly arbitrary.
The use of country boundaries to denote a category is not arbitrary; it is adopting the most commonly-used existing set of geographical divisions of human populations. That is why we have for example, the United Nations rather than the United Arbitrarily Defined Geographical Areas, why sportspeople go to the Olympic Games as representatives of nations rather than of arbitrarily defined geographical areas, and why human travel is regulated by passports issued by nations rather than by arbitrarily defined geographical areas. (Try crossing any international border with a passport issued in the name of an arbitrarily defined geographical area, and see how that goes).
A standalone article can easily link to a list, so there is no advantage to merging it to the list unless it is absurdly short and/or fails notability tests. In the case of Hughes, the sources I found above are sufficient to double the size of the existing article, taking it beyond stub length. We don't, for example, routinely merge notable sportspeople or writers or politicians or scientists to a list, and I see no reason to merge notable supercentenarians. Sure, merge the non-notable; but this one is notable.
When I approached this AFD, I expected that my !vote would be to merge. However, the availability of sources persuaded me otherwise. I am disappointed to see that having made an AFD nom without doing the required
WP:BEFORE, you seem to be pursuing your predetermined option even tho the facts have changed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:PAGEDECIDE, part of our notability guidelines, whereby coverage of the subject within the broader context of the target page is more informative to readers. — JFG talk 07:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:PAGEDECIDE
. That guidance is to ensure that for example, we have one cohesive article on a small town rather than a series of stubs on each of its streets. It does not mention using list articles as merge targets, and does not recommend creating omnibus set-of-people articles for notable people.
I also disagree with your application of the minor anecdotes rule. Flying somewhere for a birthday would indeed be trivial in most cases, but in the case of Hughes it is a) directly related to the reason for her notability, and b) received extensive coverage in multiple major quality newspapers. Again, being a loyal bank customer is trivia; but being a customer of the same branch for 100 years is exceptional, and possibly globally unique.
I am sad to see that the reaction against GRG-spam is producing such a disproportionate response. It seems to have moved far beyond the well-justified cleanup of non-notables to an outright hostility to the topic, which breaches
WP:NPOV
and several other core policies. This hostility is several driving editors to disregard substantive coverage in multiple major news sources. It seems to me that if you want to some rule which imposes uniquely onerous criteria on longevity-related articles, then you need to run an RFC to seek consensus for it, rather than stretching existing guidelines with an interpretation which is not in the text of the guideline and is not applied to other topics.
I have to say that I am shocked by the level of what seems to be uncritical groupthink in this discussion. Four editors responded without challenging the glaring lack of
WP:BEFORE
, which is an alarming omission. And now we have several editors effectively arguing that no amount of coverage in reliable sources can justify a standalone article.
A similar process of contra-policy groupthink is evident in multiple discussions at
WP:BIO1E
refers to people notable solely through coverage of a single event, and it is a patently ridiculous stretch to use that policy as grounds for merging an article about someone who received sustained substantive coverage for a least seven years, across multiple events, solely because they all relate on one attribute. (Many, possibly most, short biographical articles elate to one attribute. For example, we have hundreds of thousands of short articles on minor sportspeople who only ever played for one team, or minor politicians who only ever represented one party in one elected office, and there is zero practice of merging them into one blob article of "Foo Party member of the Ruritanian Parliament" or "Players on the Foo sports team".)
We also have @
WP:Categorization_of_people#By_nationality_and_occupation
. TBOTNL's position is not just making up policy to suit a purpose; it is flagrantly contradicting long-established policy and guidelines.
I value the cleanup of GRG cruft, but I am alarmed by what I see here. It seems to me to be something close to a POV-pushing cabal whose conduct is starting to mirror some of the policy-averse POV-pushing of the GRG/WOP cabal which caused such drama a decade ago. The GRG/WOP crowd's tendentiousness went through multiple ANI/AFD dramas before eventually ending up at Arbcom with lots of sanctions. Please do not follow them down the same path. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many, possibly most, short biographical articles elate to one attribute – Personally I'm for as much elating as possible, other things being equal. EEng 13:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding a joke in my typo, @EEng. We all need more things to smile at, and — as you say — as much elating as possible.
And now that you are here, it would be good to see an experienced editor like yourself commenting on the substance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You meant to say "experienced and respected", no doubt. EEng 03:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My category nominations are an altogether separate issue, you can chalk that up to me not being all that familiar with that area of Wikipedia. Besides, that's basically a one-off situation, and once those come to whatever resolution there aren't a ton more sitting around. As to this page, it should be clear I agree with JFG, but I don't want to bludgeon this discussion so I'll bow out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @
WP:CLOSEAFD. My reading of WP:Non-admin closure is that this AFD should be closed by an admin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  1. The massive disruption caused at WP:CFD by a slew of near-identical nominations by Legacypac and TBOTNL, which raised the same issue and should have made as a single group nomination
  2. The blatant tag-teaming by members of that project in those ~dozen CFD discussions, in which they parroted a line that had been agreed somewhere else without regard to its disruptive consequences
  3. The tag-teaming at this AFD, in which WP:LONGEVITY members piled in to ignore the lack of
    WP:BEFORE
  4. The repeated instances on this page of WP:LONGEVITY members blatantly misrepresenting policy or inventing policy
Now we have Legacypac continuing the same shoddy game.
  • Legacypac refers to a bunch of "auto notable" athlete pages, that many people don't think should be allowed either. "Many people don't think" is not how policy is formed on en.wp; we decide by
    WP:RFC
    to change it, but don't simply dismiss it on the grounds that you reckon some other people support your view.
  • We have existing policies on notability. They do not give automatic notability to long-lived people (as the GRG crew wanted), but nor do they exclude notability being formed on the basis of longevity (as the WP:LONGEVITY believe). If you want to make it part of the notability guidelines, then open a
    WP:RFC
If, as Legacypac claims, the WP:LONGEVITY members are experienced editors, they should know better than to conduct themselves like this. I can recall no encounters with WP:LONGEVITY until yesterday, but I have been appalled by what I have seen in the last 24 hours.
And finally ... yes, if the WP:LONGEVITY members here persist in their misrepresentations of policy and their fabrications of poliy, then the closer of this discussion is obliged to ignore them. That is long-standing XFD policy, and if the closer fails to discount the nonsense being peddled here, then the closure will be rapidly taken to DRV. I urge WP:LONGEVITY members to clean up their act instead of shooting the messenger. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even Admins are subject to policies against casting aspirations and making personal attacks. Nominating categories for deletion that contain one or three pages is not disruption it is cleanup. Exercise caution. Legacypac (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As stated before, the article and category issues are altogether unrelated. The category issue was the result of categories being a Rube Goldberg machine with which I am unfamiliar, and which I seem to have inadvertently helped create a mess; it was unintentional, and discussion of the issue there belongs there. This is about whether an article should be kept or deleted. As I seem to stand accused of murdering people today, or something, accusations of fabrications are fairly mild... but I, anyway, am not arguing no one can be notable for living a long time. I should also say I have great respect for BrownHairedGirl's work all over Wikipedia, so I neither take nor intend any of this to be personal; no reason to get stressed over Wikipedia matters. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @
WP:BOOMERANG
. Personally, I'd prefer not to have all the drama of an ANI trip, but if you do want a spotlight shone on WP:LONGEVITY's activities as documented here, then go right ahead.
@The Blade of the Northern Lights, I do understand that the making of the multiple nominations arose out of lack of experience with CFD. That's a good faith mistake, but it became problematic because of the subsequent tag-teaming in which several editors expressed a desire to depopulate other categories which they believe shouldn't exist, but where nobody has sought a consensus to delete them.
Anyway, I am glad to see that you not arguing no one can be notable for living a long time. If so, then in view of the GNG-meeting significant coverage of this topic, I presume that you will withdraw your proposal to merge or delete this article. It would also be nice to see you strike the stuff about nationality being an arbitrarily defined geographical area. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I was being a bit overly philosophical, which I have a lifelong penchant for. On this article we seem to primarily disagree on whether it should stand alone or be part of a list, and indeed the coverage she did receive was due to her longevity; in either instance, whatever happens her longevity would be the reason for a mention anywhere on Wikipedia. I backed away from the category discussions because I saw something went off the rails and didn't want to make it worse, I'll try to do some reading and figure out a solution for that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, her notability does seem to derive from longevity. I have not seen any genuine policy-based reason to support the assertion that means her bio should be merged to a list. It's clear that some editors would like policy to require a merge, but that is a different matter. We work with policy as it is, not how we'd like it to be.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have not participated in this AfD, but I have commented on several AfDs of supercentenarians that the rate at which they are listed for AfD (16 on one day, on one occasion!) precludes serious consideration of whether they are notable or not. (See especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadayoshi Tanabe (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miriam Schmierer, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Sisnett, (also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Berner (supercentenarian) (2nd nomination), as well as Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Longevity#Notability_criteria?) The assumption seems to be that because they reached extreme old age, they cannot be notable; and even if they are, they do not deserve an article. I think a more accurate name for the project would be WikiProject AntiLongevity. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for anyone else, but I have made a concerted effort not to flood AfD; I thought that day was too much, and (perhaps ironically) it was partially the result of lack of coordination (a couple of those were me, but you'll see that then, as with all other days, I only nominate 2-4 on any day). I hope what I've said above clarifies my own position, at least. And as long as you're here, I sincerely appreciate your work on Edna Parker and Jack Lockett; I haven't acknowledged your work as I should have. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your acknowledgement, I appreciate it. I must admit that I find it hard to understand what the notability criteria or guidelines for supercentenarians are. You stated at
WP:SIGCOV, if that SIGCOV comes because of their extreme old age. (Btw, I have contacted the closing admin on Bernice Madigan.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh, this makes me so angry. The admin who closed Bernice Madigan has responded, "Subprojects don't write policy. Not all votes are equal and its not a democracy or straight up vote. The delete side had better arguments. Listifying barely or non-notable subjects into one notable or significant list is an established practise, which is why I closed it that way. . What biographical data has been lost that couldn't be included in a list." Why bother at all, then? You may as well just delete them all, and I'll stop wasting my time researching and revising. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge to an appropriate list. I never worry about notability in these cases, but rather focus on
    WP:PAGEDECIDE
    -- what's worth saying about the person and where to say it. Here's what the article tells us about her:
Hughes grew up in
army captain, after retiring at 63; Noel died in 1979. She remained in robust health into extreme old age. For her 110th birthday she flew on Concorde for a visit to New York City, one of only two known supercentenarian air passengers. Hughes lived in her own home in Marske-by-the-Sea until 1991, when she moved to a nursing home in Redcar
. In her final years she used a wheelchair, but remained mentally sharp.
(A quick glance at outside sources doesn't reveal anything more worth adding.) Everything else (didn't want Thatcher to hug her, Thatcher said "let's have a cup of tea", broke Woman X's longevity record, Koch was Mayor of NY, ...) is cruft.I firmly think the best way to present such respectable but simple lives is as part of a list of other similar lives, so they can be read together, instead of forcing the reader to click from one somewhat-puffed-up permastub to another. I've been saying this for years. EEng 03:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @EEng: that's an odd summary. It omits a bunch of pertinent things known from the current sources, including:
  1. the names of her parents (where available, those are a customary part of any en.wp biography)
  2. that she was the longest-lived person ever documented in the United Kingdom (the core her notability. Why omit that?)
  3. That the terms of her employment forbade her from marrying (such a ban has been illegal in the UK since the 1970s, so it's a significant issue)
  4. that despite not marrying until her retirement, she still had a well-above-average 40 years of marriage (a notable consequence of longevity)
  5. That her parents lived into their 90s, but her siblings died 50 years younger than her (a fact relevant to considerations of family patterns of longevity)
  6. that she was invited to meet both the UK Prime Minster and the Mayor of New York (who yes, are both named, because in her lifetime each office was held by over a dozen people)
  7. that she was a Labour Party supporter
EEng's rewrite seems to go far beyond mere removal of fluff, even unto removing both the reason for her notability and material which should be included in any biog if available. I don't know why EEng does this, but it seems sadly consistent with the repeated approach of other WP:LONGEVITY editors to minimise the content of biogs in this field.
From the book source provided above by Cunard (Maier et al, 2010), we could and should add
  1. That she was visited by her head of state
  2. the description of her character
  3. Her own comments on the reason for her longevity, which is not cruft: it's her view of the attribute which made her notable
And that's before going through the 7 further sources I listed above.
EEng's description of this as a somewhat-puffed-up permastub is at best only part true. Sure the current article includes waffle like Born in Hartlepool in the 40th year of Queen Victoria's reign, she lived under the rule of five more monarchs and 24 British Prime Ministers." However, it is not a stub; at 1921 characters (337 words) "readable prose size" it is 28% longer than the 1,500 character minimum for the no-stubs
WP:DYK#Eligibility_criteria
.
With the waffle trimmed but the new material added, it would still exceed the DYK stub threshold.
So I am left pondering the same question that I asked myself when I saw a tag-team of WP:LONGEVITY editors vociferously demanding the removal of all extant longevity categories in a succession of discussions at
WP:CATDEFINING attribute? In nearly 13 years editing en.wp, I have never seen the likes of that project's overwhelming hostility to their topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Appears to meet criteria for

(non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 05:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Mariya Fomina

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

A non-notable Russian actress. More often episodic roles in little-known films.--RTY9099 (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 02:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She has a starring role in at least three of her films. There is plenty of Russian coverage in GNews, and there's even a New York Times review of one of her films confirming a starring role ([15]). --Michig (talk) 07:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Russian coverage in a Google News search with just the actress's name. SL93 (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earth's circumference

Earth's circumference (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)

Reason:

Wikipedia:Content forking. The article has no substantive content that does or could differ from Earth radius. Circumference is merely radius times two pi. Modern literature preferentially uses radius. Strebe (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

I recommend a redirect. The history, measurement, and concept of both circumference and radius are identical. Both are based on an idealized sphere; neither are measured directly; and knowing one implies the other. Strebe (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about the same. I disagree because sources treat them separately – circumference is the ancient and practical topic used for navigation and later to define measurements of length (metre, nautical mile), whereas radius is a technical unit used primarily for astronomy. In other words, one is relevant to society, travel and history and the other is relevant to outer space. For the same reason, the two articles cover different content. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, determining the radius and determining the circumference are the same problem. Because the radius is more directly applicable to further calculation (such as area or volume), the topic is preferentially referred to as "radius" in modern literature, including in both geodesy and navigation. I agree that circumference used to be common for the reasons you give, but the Wikipedia way of dealing with something like that is to have "Earth's circumference" (which should be "Earth circumference" in any case) redirect to "Earth radius" with a note in the lede about the one-to-one relationship between circumference and radius. Should we have another article about "Earth diameter" as well, since diameter used to be more commonly used than radius? Surely not. Strebe (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should follow the sources. If they cover the topics differently, so should we.
Should all 149 articles in Category:Units of length be merged into one, simply because they are all directly calculable from each other?
Onceinawhile (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Should all 149 articles in Category:Units of length be merged into one, simply because they are all directly calculable from each other?. No, because they aren’t. False analogy. Some of those articles are spurious and should be merged. Decimetre, for example, is a stub, will never be anything but a stub; and concerns a thing that has no history or development independent of the meter and that is defined as a calculation from the meter. Foot (unit), on the other hand, is not defined by the meter or any other unit, has many variants, and has a history independent of other units. The fact that someone or even a standards body has given equivalences does not thereby mean they are defined in terms of each other. While an inch is always 1/12th of a foot, its history and origin is independent of the foot, so it’s a reasonable candidate for a separate article. For a more reasonable treatment of topics, see Trigonometric functions, where the basic trigonometric units are all presented in one article because they all derive from the same basics. That is instead of separate articles for sine, cosine, tangent, etc. Meanwhile, circumference and radius are invertible, and now you have gobs of material that duplicates what’s already in Earth radius.
The “follow the sources” argument also does not hold, and for the same reasons. We do not have a separate article on quadrature as distinct from numerical integration even though the early literature preferentially uses that term. Strebe (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are different precedents for separating or combining topics that can be derived from each other, as in most of the measurement unit articles, and decision on a case-by-case basis seems to be the usual (sensible) approach. In this case, I think there is a distinct difference in article focus - Earth radius deals with measurement methods and the physical side; Earth's circumference is almost entirely historical in content. I suppose a workable merge could be engineered, but I don't really see the necessity. In any case, it's not content duplication/forking. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article duplicates large swaths of the article, where the historical circumference measurements are discussed in detail. As for a “merge”, this article is brand new.
That's actually correct - the expanded material would fit better in there. Change to merge to History of geodesy. (I don't see what the new status of the article has to do with anything, though; much of the material seems not to be covered in the latter). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Elmidae: what about the other sections? The article is still being built, but there are already at least two other sections which would not fit into History of Geodesy. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to me Earth’s circumference would have to deal with the seashore problem, where the more closely something is examined the more fractal iterations interfere with averages. Somebody must have written something about this. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Circumference, and specifically this article, concerns only the circular model. Strebe (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: while the article does or should entirely duplicate the content of existing articles (Earth radius, History of geodesy, etc.), there is nothing inherently wrong with the title. I suggest a redirect to Earth radius, but divining a reader's intent might offer a different target. Anything not already present but considered useful should be merged to the relevant title. Lithopsian (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge or redirect as the topics are seriously overlapped. Although circumference seems to be a more correct term, as that is what is measured, and the radius has not been directly measured, and will take a while before it is. (Perhaps diameter can be measured using gravitational waves, or a neutrino burst, but that is yet in the future when more sensors exist). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although circumference seems to be a more correct term, as that is what is measured, It is not. What is measured are angles consisting of straight lines, which, through the presumption of a spherical earth, yields an imaginary arc of a circle via trigonometry. Again, with the presumption of a spherical earth, this arc is extrapolated into a circumference and radius. Strebe (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lithopsian posed what I think is the key question here – what would an average reader, searching for “Earth’s circumference”, or similar, expect and want to find? If it is just “how long is it”, they don't need to click on Wikipedia. I think they mostly come here to find out “what is measurement of the circumference used for” or “why is the Earth’s circumference important”? This article now does that, and could do even more if it was given time to develop. Before this article, this information was dispersed across perhaps a dozen articles, making the journey to understanding laborious and complicated.
Some merge proposals have suggested Earth radius – this is a highly technical article, aimed at geodesists, which answers different questions and is focused on the defined astronomical unit R🜨. Another suggestion is history of geodesy, since part of that article’s scope overlaps with part of this article’s scope – in the way that human height partially overlaps with history of anthropometry.
There is no good single target article for a merge, and having this information dispersed back across a dozen articles would not help the reader. Hence the status quo serves the reader best. A compromise might be a “merge and demerge” with Earth radius to create a concept article called Earth radius and circumference (or something similarly inclusive) and a separate article called
Earth radius (unit)
.
Onceinawhile (talk) 07:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some merge proposals have suggested Earth radius – this is a highly technical article, aimed at geodesists, which answers different questions and is focused on the defined astronomical unit R🜨. Not so. Nothing beyond the symbol has anything to do with the astronomical R🜨, and rather little of it has to do with anything geodesists concern themselves with, either. Geodesists are interested in the ellipsoid and geoid, not sphere, and therefore do not concern themselves with "radius" except as a digression. The article's bent is, actually, about an idealized radius for an idealized sphere, which is the same concern, history, measurement, and mathematical foundation for a circumference. If the article needs to be reformed or enhanced to better serve readers who might not realize circumference and radius are inseparable, then that is a project I could get behind. The fact that they are inseparable, however, argues against two articles for the same topic. Strebe (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is obviously a reasonable search term;
    π, ν) 04:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
As Earth is not a perfect sphere, this isn't simply a mathematical function of Earth's radius. It is. Because earth is not a perfect sphere, radius also has no precise meaning, and in exactly the same way as circumference cannot. (This is noted in the Earth radius article.) Strebe (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In a purely mathematical sense, circumference is a function of the radius. However, in a more practical sense, the two have been used differently. Sailors did not navigate using the Earth's radius. Technically, they could have, the reality is, they didn't. As such, two separate articles are needed to reflect the difference in practical usage of the two concepts. This holds true, even if much of this article is repeating information that is already written in Earth radius. - Puzzledvegetable (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per the reasons cited by others here, especially those of
    WP:RELIABLE game here. Pericles of AthensTalk 06:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SNOW Merge and redirect to Civilization (board game), with no prejudice against creating a list article as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Civilization (board game)

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

This disambiguation page is in violation of

WP:INCOMPDAB. All entries can be listed at the parent disambiguation page, Civilization (disambiguation) without issue. -- Tavix (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, cont'd: Anyway, I applaud this, the first effort, to actually engage in discussion. If you must delete the page, feel free to do so, but please make sure you don't leave stuff hanging (from related article pages). Best regards
CapnZapp (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I think everyone wants to put the content and wikilinks of related pages into a consistent state. The reason this didn't happen is that editors with different views were pulling in opposing directions, making edits which were each reasonable in isolation but conflicted when viewed as a group. Once we have a consensus on which way to go, we can soon get there together. Can we agree the best target for the hatnotes? I propose Civilization (disambiguation)#Games (which will automatically appear styled as Civilization (disambiguation) § Games) as that's the actual destination and will keep such links off the reports of ambiguous links to be fixed. Certes (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why should there even be hatnotes? "Civilization (2010 board game)" is not ambiguous. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The full name of the game is "Sid Meier's Civilization: The Board Game", which redirects there (along with a few variants). That title specifically refers to just that game, although it is ambiguous enough to refer to most of the boardgames generally. -- Tavix (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A good point. Most of the hatnotes can be removed per
WP:SMALLDIFFS) those titles are ambiguous enough to retarget them directly to the dab section. Certes (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The hat notes should certainly stay: The difference between Sid Meier's Civilization: The Boardgame and Sid Meier's Civilization: The Board Game is a mere space; nuff said. And since we have three articles named Civilization (YY board game), it is easy to see how a reader got the wrong one and would be helped by links to the others. (Via a single link to disambiguation, of course; not by some incomplete listing right in the hat note). Then it's the matter of actually formatting the Civilization (board game) (disambiguation) article (or section if you must). Please see talk. (Sigh - I really wish people weren't so talk page averse...) Okay - here goes: In short, what to link - the real title or the Wikipedia article title? And it looks strange to have A New Dawn as the sole exception; very jarring. Please don't intermix board and video games in a single jumbled "Games" section. It becomes one long list of hypnotic "Civilization" entries with only slight variance in wording that are directly reader hostile. Did I miss one? I probably did. All in all, I suggest this process (the AfD) is put on hold or whatever while we have a proper holistic discussion on an actual goddamn talk page (anywhere but here - when the discussion closes, this space gets shut down with no further possibility to discuss), copying this stuff now that we finally have started talking. Thanks.
CapnZapp (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_December_8&oldid=1142616703"