Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 21

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 20 May 22 May >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

John Boessenecker

John Boessenecker (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)

Sources are generally self-written pieces that have been posted on sales cites or other such puff areas. Nothing in here shows him to be Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:03, 22 May 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

(non-admin closure) The editor whose username is Z0 17:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

The Miracle Mile Shot

The Miracle Mile Shot (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 photograph lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:12, 23 May 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. – Joe (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serengetee

Serengetee (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)

As an IP pointed out on talk page, the article seems to be promotional. Only 1 RS used. Nanophosis (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:16, 23 May 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. Numerically, it's 21 delete to 16 keep. That's not a clear consensus, so we have to look at the arguments.

As Jeff5102 writes, "one side sees references from established, third-party news outlets, while the other side disqualifies them because they are opinion pieces." That's the core disagreement in view of which I need to weigh the arguments.

WP:RSOPINION
).

My reading of these rules is that opinion pieces alone are insufficient to establish notability, because the purpose of our notability guidelines is to ensure that there are enough reliable sources to base an article on. And as seen above we can't write an article, which always includes assertions of fact, based solely on opinion pieces.

For these reasons, in my view, the majority of "delete" opinions is also based on clearly stronger arguments, and the article must therefore be deleted. It can be recreated if more coverage of this topic in reliable sources that are not opinion pieces is found. It can also be editorially redirected, as a plausible search term, to Eric Weinstein#Intellectual dark web. Sandstein 19:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual Dark Web

AfDs for this article:
Intellectual Dark Web (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)

Previously deleted and redirected to th3 article on Weinstein. Re-created recently by a sock puppet, deleted, and now re-created again, this time by a good faith editor. We have a list of names, a definition which is a repeat if the section in the Weinstein article, and a colour piece. In fact the only substantive change from last deletion is one more colour piece, covering substantially the same very small factual element. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear why this article would not just be marked as a "stub" and people invited to add more rather than deleted altogether? It seems like a current significant social movement that is getting the attention of the New York Times. I'm also unclear why you removed all the content related to race/ prejudice that was sourced/ referenced and why you indicated that it was not? The addition of the some of the ideas, which you deleted, that define this group (free speech, etc.) and their ideas re: race/ prejudice seem to be an important contribution to the topic on wiki. --Hantsheroes (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because there are plenty of things this article has yet to cover and it is easy to find sources. There are many different opinions about what this loose affiliation means and about whether it's a good or bad thing. Do the people named in this article embrace the term? Are there other people who were once alleged to be part of the IDW before they rejected it? All of these should be discussed. Connor Behan (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject has received considerable media interest. The first AFD's result was merge to Eric Weinstein. Since that a major article in the New York Times with interviews a photo-shoot by a Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer [2] appeared this lead to several subsequent articles in press: The Chronicle of Higher Education[3], National Review [4], Washington Post[5], New Statesman[6], a humorous piece in the Guardian[7]. Due to this media interest and discussion on the talk page the closer of the original AFD leaving it void. Several people have deleted and recreated the article since.
I was the person who first performed the merge to Eric Weinstein, but it did not feel like a particularly good solution, much of the information in the original article did not fit the bio of one of the minor players. --Salix alba (talk): 22:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment In response to comments about sustained coverage, there are more sources from before the NYT article, these are currently in deleted revisions, Conatus News, January 18, 2018 [1] Rubins Report, Jan 30[2] Big Think, March 15[3] Provident Journal, March 22 [4] Sam Harris April 16[5]--Salix alba (talk): 03:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not one of those is a reliable independent secondary source. Most are primary and have a vested interest. Guy (Help!) 13:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although we should be prepared to move the article as the name changes. The NYT editorial is sufficient for notability, but probably not for naming names. Since I will be reverted, I will not remove the list of names, even though they present a probable
    WP:BLP violation. I'm not sure what would be sufficient; I only know that neither source so far provided is adequate. The NYT column seems adequate for the names, but the list of names was probably taken from clearly unreliable sources. It needs to be carefully watched, to avoid BLP considerations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The Chronicle of Higher Education article is interesting as it gives an insight into the process of the NYT article from someone who declined to be included. Those with photos have agreed to the photo shoot associating their names with the project. Other post NYT articles offer criticism of the term for many of the same reasons editors have expressed here. --Salix alba (talk): 22:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep While it might have been borderline at the last AfD there is now unquestionably enough coverage to ring the WP:N bell. The only question is whether or not there is enough reliably sourced content to build a stand alone article that isn't doomed to being a perma-stub. I believe there is. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Intellectual has an established meaning. Shouldn't be thrown about to refer to Dave Rubin (youtube show for a year or two) or Eric Weinstein (Biologist protesting race center policies). A NYT article glorifying a group of people is not the same as creation of an entity. These individuals, bound by political views and very questionable stances on ethnicity and mental capacity call themselves "intellectuals". A NYT article isn't enough reason for them being referred to as intellectual. I'd hate to use a more direct Nazi analogy, so I won't. Paulthemonk (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The term is being used by a lot more than the NYT. If you have a disagreement with the manner in which it is being employed you need to take that up with the sources. All we do here is repeat what the sources are saying. Nothing more and nothing less. It's not our job to say they are wrong. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They don't call themselves "intellectuals". Eric called them "intellectuals". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the term is being used by multiple reliable sources. Until the sources change their language that's what we go with. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the last AfD for this, I was one of the editors who suggested "Merge" because it just did not have enough notability. The NY Times piece and the associated writings and controversy in reaction to it put the subject clearly in the "notable" column for me. Dozens of mainstream and respected writers writing in mainstream publications reacted to that piece and not only commented on the piece itself and its author but debated, often passionately, the merits and demerits of the philosophies, personages and concepts associated with the term "Intellectual Dark Web", adding significantly to its notability and visibility in the public fora. Marteau (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 03:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
What has this to do with "conspiracy theories"? --Epipelagic (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 03:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
We are here to determine notability of the subject, not just blindly compare the way the article was then with the way it is now. And for what it's worth, there's more than just one "fluff piece" added to the article since then... a lot has changed, and it's still a work in progress. It's a very young article.
Anyway to address your question: What Changed Since Last AfD? A LOT changed since then. Last AfD was closed 9 May. A google search for "all" occurrences of "Intellectual Dark Web" JUST since 9 May returns SEVENTEEN PAGES of results. A google search for "news" occurrences of "Intellectual Dark Web" returns four pages of results. JUST since May 9. Just since six days ago.
Literally dozens of newspapers and magazines carried articles addressing the "fluff piece" and the ideas the "fluff piece" brought up. Writers from The Washington Post, The Washington Examiner, National Review, Chronicle of Higher Education, "Reason", The Village Voice, The Boston Herald, The American Enterprise Institute, Vanity Fair, New York Magazine, Esquire, Spectator UK, Media Matters for America, Washington Free Beacon, Los Angeles Times, and dozens others all had writers who discussed the "Intellectual Dark Web" NY Times article, and most of the directly addressed and debated the issues that article brought up. AND THIS WAS ALL SINCE MAY 9. Whether or not those writings will make it into the article as a citation is not the question. The question is, is the subject notable. The fact that so many big name writers from big name organizations discussed the issue is proof that the subject is notable in a big way. This explosion of interest is well demonstrated by looking at Google Trends for "Intellectual Dark Web". They use a relative scale of 0 to 100 with 0 being no interest and 100 being maximum interest for that subject. On May 5, interest was at a "2". Today, it is at "100". In nine days, interest in the subject has increased FIFTY TIMES.
THAT is "what changed" Marteau (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEON --Tarage (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Just because something became a blip on the radar doesn't make it notable. What will you say if interest vanishes over the next few days/weeks/months? Should we have a wiki article about every briefly mentioned phrase? Better draft an article on 'bae'. I'm not convinced that an opinion piece and responses to said opinion piece are notable. Nor am I convinced based on a google search history. Neither even remotely count towards something being notable. --Tarage (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article on
π, ν) 21:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Bad example but my point stands. --Tarage (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that your point stands. While I feel that contemporaneous news coverage is not a
secondary source
, the consensus is to treat it as such for the purposes of determining notability of recent events. Various "pop culture" terms are as a result included, despite the possibility that they may just be an irrelevant fad in the long term. I believe there are plenty of "Tea Party" or "Occupy Wall Street" articles created based on that theory which might not survive AfD today.
Notability is not temporary, but how the notability of current events is perceived sometimes is. When the media covers
π, ν) 21:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
By that standard we should be stalking every opinion piece that someone writes that gets replies. I frankly don't agree with that in the slightest. This is not a neologism. People have to USE it before it reaches that point. I don't see anyone using it in reports outside of replying to the opinion piece. It was fine when it lived in the article it's been ripped out of numerous times. --Tarage (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The standard for inclusion in the encylopedia is not whether you see people using it. Here's nine pages of google results where people obviously not on your radar or in your social circle who were talking about it before April 30 of this year (i.e. before the NY Times article) It was a thing well before the NY Times article, and before everyone replied to it.
And how many of those are reliable sources? How many actually matter? Are we just going to create articles on whatever bullshit search terms people find amusing for a second? Also sign your post. --Tarage (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote per
WP:SUSTAINED. (See Jytdog's reasoning below.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
It is not clear to me why the New York Times article is not referenced in the footnotes of this article at all even when it is referenced in the body of the article. Further, the fact that the NYT article is an Op Ed piece doesn't negate that it is discussing a fact - a group of people have identified themselves with the Intellectual Dark Web. The opinion isn't whether or not the group exists or what it stands for - the opinion is evaluating the merits of the group. We can be cautious about elevating this opinion as fact, but not dispute that this group of people exist. The NYT article can be used to reference/ prove the group exists and what it stands for. Why would attacks on/ opinions about the NYT article and the IDW be okay to reference with footnotes from other newspapers but not the NYT article itself? Please clarify.--Hantsheroes (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic for this AfD. I responded on the article talk page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was not familiar with the concept of this (I found the Intellectual Dark Web article from a reference from Jordan Peterson's wikipedia page). From it, I learned that Peterson's point of view is not unique; the IDW is "notable", and the WP page directed me toadditional well-founded sources and references, both pro and con. Thus, the article serves a valid purpose and does so without prejudice and in a balanced way. Thus, "keep". Dr. Crash (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article is currently undergoing rapid editing, with various editors adding and removing large amounts of oftentimes contentious material, and there is much disagreement over what should and should not be included. Just something to keep in mind when determining your position on the deletion or retention of this article... the current version will almost certainly be significantly different once the dust settles and we achieve some sort of consensus on the content (which we have not yet achieved, as a quick visit to the page history will confirm). Marteau (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and admonish the nominator for persistently (and unsurprisingly) source-stripping this, per
    WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
That's neither AGF nor accurate. Guy has been removing unreliable sources. That ain't source-stripping, there's nothing wrong with it, and this isn't the forum for admonitions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He has been SELECTIVELY removing sources and saying they are unreliable. For example, removing a Boston Herald source saying it is "an unsigned editorial" while at the same time insisting that an unsigned satire piece be used in the second sentence of the article to link the IDW to the "alt-right". Marteau (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is neither the time nor place for that, Marteau. The sources in question are all readily available, and consensus is forming around your keep position. Please let it rest. As I said at article talk, if you have issues with Guy's behavior you'd be best off raising them on his user talk. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirect Seems to be clearly notable as I have seen/heard it discussed by various people, though not RS. Sources should improve overtime. As other comments have pointed out, if nothing else, it isn't ripe yet. I am changing my !vote to redirect to Eric Weinstein and if RS sources come along later the redirect can get expanded. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 21:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC); edited {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 23:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after an initial "no consensus" closure because of a participant's assertion that arguments provided in the second half of the discussion could sway opinions. Let's see how that goes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging all prior participants to invite them to respond to the recent comments (starting with Jytdog). --22:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Keep as before, and my comments on the inappropriateness of the nominator stripping sources from it still stand. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: Please be careful not to count this as a double vote. I'm sure that wasn't Andy's intention. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm unfamiliar with this new policy where AfDs are closed and re-opened repeatedly until they give the right answer. I was pinged specifically, to re-submit my !vote, and so I did. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The potential confusion with the dark web and the fact that some of us would have personally preferred a different term is not relevant. Diminishing interest in the neologism is, but some people are missing the fact that reliable sources talked about the "intellectual dark web" before it was called the "intellectual dark web". Look at how much coverage some of these events generated. A proper article would give a mini-biography of each member which mentions the controversies that propelled him or her into this loosely defined group. For Peterson it could be the opposition to a civil rights bill. For Harris it could be the Murray fiasco and so on. We could then discuss the Weiss article, the reaction to it and the uncertainty some people have about whether they are in this movement. Cathy Young is an example. The main reason I haven't started adding all of this is that I don't want to put the work in when the article is still unsafe. Connor Behan (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That you think "dark" does not mean what they think it means is irrelevant. That you think they are trying to be "edgy and clever" is also irrelevant. Answering your question, How does it serve our readers to keep such stuff? as you may have noticed, coverage on this has been unbalanced and divided. We have the opportunity to do a service unavailable from other sources and provide balanced coverage... something which is sorely lacking in not only this, but in other controversial political topics. Marteau (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that has been up for AfD before is bound to already be on quite a few people's watchlists and attract a bit of interest if it is put up for AfD again. That doesn't make it notable in itself. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, and there are lots and lots of AfDs that see much more participation and end up with Delete outcomes. Not to mention that there are well-known systemic biases at Wikipedia and editor interest should in no way, shape, or form play a role in determining the outcome of any content discussion. This is actually addressed directly by
WP:INVOLVE. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Your reference to WP:RAPID isn't very fair. The article was already deleted twice. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@
^^^ 11:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Not particularly relevant. Guy's "rush" to AfD was eminently reasonable purely from a procedural perspective, given the article's deletion history. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Editors should not thread their double votes as extra votes. The AfD was relisted, but it's not a new vote. If they want to re-affirm, they should start a thread with a Comment or Re-affirm starting the thread. Or enter their comment under their !vote. Dave Dial (talk) 06:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Per Jytdog and DanielRigal. Reading the discussion here and reading the article and sources,
    WP:SUSTAINED apply here. As well as the reasoning DanielRigal gives. Op-eds & the discussion of those(mostly in a derisive manner) don't cut it. We do our readers a disservice with this article name. The Dark web isn't YouTube or Twitter, and it's an absurd title. Put their names on List of YouTubers article and mention the op-ed in the Bari Weiss and Eric Weinstein articles. Dave Dial (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Whether or not you consider the term absurd or not, or whether or not it has anything to do with the
Dark Web or not is completely irrelevant toward the question of its notability. Marteau (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ Kishere, Jacob (January 18, 2018). "What is driving the rise of the 'Intellectual Dark Web?'". Conatus News.
  2. ^ Rubin, Dave. "What is The Intellectual Dark Web?". YouTube. The Rubin Report. Retrieved January 30, 2018.
  3. ^ Beres, Derek (March 15, 2018). "10 challenging books from the Intellectual Dark Web". Big Think.
  4. ^ Daum, Meghan (March 22, 2018). "My Turn: Meghan Daum: Speaking truth to identify politics". Provident Journal.
  5. ^ Harris, Sam. "The Intellectual Dark Web". Waking Up with Sam Harris. Retrieved April 16, 2018.
  • Keep. While it currently fails
    WP:SUSTAINED from my googling, it seems certain that the term still stick, so deleting it now just means it has to be remade in 3 months. Why bother? Might as well keep it and expand it as the term spreads. There's lots of RS right now. Deleet (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Just an observation, there seems to be a strange, sharp split between editors saying there are lots of reliable sources, and editors saying there are no or very few reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. That is because one side sees references from established, third-party news outlets, while the other side disqualifies them because they are opinion pieces. I believe both sides have a point. The dillema here is that both Wikipedia's policies on opinion pieces, as well as the tendency of today's media outlets to prefer opinions above facts, make it hard to write an article on present-day intellectual discussions without that "strange, sharp split." The best solution would be something like delete without prejudice to recreate it in 2068, if notability by then is established, but maybe someone could discuss this issue on one of Wikipedia's boards on guidelines instead.Jeff5102 (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When I google the term to see if its been getting attention, I see articles in a quite wide variety of outlets, including: Vox, Slate, Reason, The Guardian, DailyBeast, Chronicle, WashPost, National Review, the Federalist, and of course NYT. Seems unlikely this term will just disappear again. Sam Harris is going strong from what I can tell, and there's many other of these talk host people (e.g. Stefan Molyneux) who talk to the IDW 'members'. The culture war is raging at full strength right now (judging from e.g. divergence in social media), so IDW movement will continue to have left-wing extremism to react against. Deleet (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And then there is new (hit-)piece of The Outline; [8], about Bret Weinstein identifying himself “[a]s a member of the Intellectual Dark Web...” I do not know if The Outlook counts as a "reliable third-party-source" (in this case, IDW-fans will disagree, while those who hate it will consider it as acceptable), but at least it contributes somewhat to the notability of the IDW.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@
^^^ 11:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
That's clearly an opinion piece... the writer uses the words "pencil necks", "Wingnut Avengers" and "libtards" and in keeping with Village Voice tradition it's sloppy to boot... twice they call it the "Dark Intellectual Web". Several delete voters here , including this one, say there are no reliable news sources... I disagree, I count two, the Spectator Life piece and the Examiner one. Those, combined with the blizzard of opinion pieces in very high profile publications by very high profile writers satisfy the notability guidelines to me. Others, obviously, disagree. Marteau (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice article, albeit clearly an opinion piece, and I do now feel that I have a clearer idea what the subject actually is after reading it. The trouble is that the key message it has for us, here on this AfD, is in the phrase "History suggests the IDweb phenomenon will be evanescent and mainly benefit its promoters". That was published two weeks ago so it is far too early to say that they have been proved wrong about that. So we do have a Reliable Source opining about the subject (which is a small plus point for its notability) but the opinion is that it is just a short term thing with little chance of sustained notability (which diminishes that already small plus point into a vanishing point). --DanielRigal (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree that this is sourced to an opinion piece which is attempting to discredit a group of thinkers by attaching a sinister label to them. Keeping the article on Wikipedia would wreak a rather unpleasant sort of mischief. So,
    talk) 06:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete as per
    WP:NOTNEO. This is a neologism which was first publishedpopularised in the NYT by Bari Weiss. (Note that although it has been pointed out that an article in Spectator used the term in February 2018, there was no follow up or commentary about this piece). I have seen the references which have been brought to the discussion and it seems that every reference is an opinion on the Bari Weiss article. Each reference refers to it roughly in this way: "...referred to as the Intellectual Dark Web by Bari Weiss in the NYT...". We should keep articles about such neologisms only when multiple journals, books and academic sources refer to it frequently. It needs to be demonstrated first that the neologism has entered into common parlance. It would be hard to assess that right now as the coverage is still fresh (it has been less than a month) and we may be suffering from a recentism bias. I suggest deleting this article right now or moving into draft space and letting it be there for the next 6 months. Based on the coverage at that point, we can then decide if we want to restore the article.--DreamLinker (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC) (slight edit- added main reason and corrections based on comment below) --DreamLinker (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
... this is a neologism which was first published in the NYT by Bari Weiss. The very first reference in the version you yourself reverted to this evening was published several months before Weiss's piece.
I have seen the references which have been brought to the discussion and it seems that every reference is an opinion on the first article. Incorrect. Besides the first reference, your categorizing sources which mention Weiss's piece as just "an opinion on the first article" is misrepresenting them. Most of them (if not all of them) do a lot more than just opine on Weiss's work, but go into detail above and beyond what Weiss wrote.
It needs to be demonstrated first that the neologism has entered into common parlance What policy or guideline says that? It's a specialized term used by people who are particularly interested in politics and philosophy. A "common parlance" requirement would rule out thousands of specialized terms in the sciences and arts. Marteau (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I stand corrected that the article in spectator (in February 2018, 3 months earlier) did use the term. However there was no article which used it after that (till May). The next article which used the term in a reliable source was the NYT opinion piece by Bari Weiss.
Almost every source is a response/commentary on Bari Weiss's piece. I stand by this fact. Whether they have extra information doesn't diminish the fact that it is a follow-up on the original piece. The interesting question to ask is, if the NYT piece was not published, would these followup articles be published as well? Would they also use the same term? (This is a
WP:RECENTISM
bias we are seeing here).
Regarding "It's a specialized term used by people who are particularly interested in politics and philosophy",
WP:NOTNEO is the relevant policy. If this is indeed a specialised term, could you point me out to at least 3 article in reputed academic journals, over a period of time which uses this term and critically examines it? (It doesn't need to be "layman's parlance". Specialised terms in philosophy are OK. But I would at least expect some discussion of these terms in academic journals).--DreamLinker (talk) 08:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete. It's not a true movement or network. The IDW has no existence outside of Bari Weiss' mind. Alice Dreger [9] criticized, almost to the point of mockery, the mere concept of an IDW — and she was one of the people whom Weiss sought to include in the article that presented the idea of the IDW, which only highlights the non-existence of such a group. So far, the term is nothing but a cringy, mauvais mot launched by a young writer who doesn't have much of a name yet. The article made a splash, mainly due to backlash (at least from where I'm standing), so the creation of this entry may have been a manifestation of recentism bias. We're taught in the guidelines to avoid recentism, not least because events or ideas may soon lose their relevance even if they made a lot of noise on their introduction. And in the case of the "IDW", this has been happening for a while already.Rafe87 (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The IDW has no existence outside of Bari Weiss' mind. Did you even look at the references? In particular, the first one, published months before the Bari Weiss article? Marteau (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The is beautiful! Even some of the people alleged to be in it don't know what it is and don't want anything to do with it. It almost seems like there is something akin to astroturfing or, given that they just want to provoke a response, trolling in it. If the subject becomes notable to the point where we need an article about it then these will be the sources we should use but, for now, it is not our job to do other people's PR work for them. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Association with a political or philosophic category is not always voluntary, see Mike Cernovich who objects to being called 'alt-right'... does not stop reliable sources or our encyclopedia from labeling him as such. Marteau (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't consider Google translation as an evidence that the term has entered common parlance. In particular. Cómo ganar un millón de euros al año siendo un intelectual (oscuro) is also translated as How to earn one million euros a year by being an intellectual (obscure). The article itself is again a commentary on the original article by Bari Weiss. ...although it has been a controversial report by Bari Weiss published in the opinion section of ' The New York Times ' which has popularized the term and has opened a debate about the role and intentions of this group... (Google translate). As per
    WP:NOTNEO, I would look for evidence that this is not a temporary news spike but a sustained usage of this term. This can be achieved by showing that reliable sources use this term and discuss it independently. Currently what we are seeing is a discussion and commentary on the NYT article by Bari Weiss.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:47, 29 May 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. MBisanz talk 00:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don Bradman Cricket 17

Don Bradman Cricket 17 (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)

Reads like an ad for this game. » Shadowowl | talk 19:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:18, 23 May 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. MBisanz talk 00:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Eat Pandas

AfDs for this article:
I Eat Pandas (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 defunct improv group; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing

Wikipedical (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Could it perhaps be merged instead of deleted? Benjamin (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Benjaminikuta: where would it be merged into? Richard3120 (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 13:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:19, 23 May 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 per

G7. MT TrainTalk 13:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply
]

KQED Life

KQED Life (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:BROADCAST; reuses content from KQEH article. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:24, 21 May 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. MBisanz talk 00:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Healing factor

Healing factor (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)

Wikipedia is not TVTropes, and this article is entirely

List of superpowers. Additionally, the title could be confused for real-life healing factor in biology/medicine. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:41, 21 May 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 Justin Tranchita. MBisanz talk 00:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This Is America (Justin Tranchita song)

This Is America (Justin Tranchita song) (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 is a very short article with just a paragraph and eight sources. While I believe the sources are credible, that does not give this song a reason to have a full article, especially when the article is extremely short. I had this song redirected to Justin Tranchita, only to have it reverted. Not to be rude, but there is no purpose to this short article with little information. The best thing to do is to merge this song's information into Justin Tranchita's article. JE98 (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - lack of sourcing, content. There is no album article, and even the artist's article is pretty short. It should just be covered there, especially considering what little there is written more in the style of a musician's history section anyways. (There's no writing/recording/reception type info, just some background info on release and use. Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:22, 23 May 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. MBisanz talk 00:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Blackford

Paul Blackford (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:NBAND. Cannot find any reliable secondary sources on subject. The references are self-published or unreliable. Hard to believe this has been unchallenged for 12 years. Rogermx (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:01, 21 May 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. MBisanz talk 00:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of films about outer space

List of films about outer space (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)

Unreferenced. Although it specifically excludes non-notable films, it is still very long and likely to be grossly incomplete. I found no evidence of a comprehensive list online, but there are a number of "best" lists with this scope such as [12]. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep We cannot legitimately delete a list of things, all with internal links, just on the grounds that it is unreferenced. The references are in these internal links! While the list is probably currently incomplete, it will eventually gain more and more titles. And there are no comprehensive list online because this is the comprehensive list, made in a period of 13 years by the power of voluntary contributions, which no one else will be able to make.
    talk) 20:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Of course we can, per
WP:EVERYTHING soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Even if true, that's not an argument. We're discussing List of films about outer space, not science fiction. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The two above comments are both WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 03:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 03:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Refbomb? It hasn't got a single reference. What's the point, the encyclopedic value of having the list? It has no information whatsoever, beyond the fact that certain films are set in outer space. "X in Y" is not informative. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overly broad list, per
    WP:LISTCRUFT. It's unclear what "about outer space" actually means. Set in outer space? Mentioning it? For what portion of the run time? Seems arbitrary. For example, I'd argue that Alien is about an alien and the main character's fight to survive, not about outer space. Battlestar Galactica is about a ship's attempts to flee genocidal robots, not outer space.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per Clarity.
    ^^^ 11:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Another non-argument: how does
WP:CLARITY apply here? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@
^^^ 13:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
My apologies, @Wumbolo, I didn't put those two together. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely true, I didn't comment on Clarityfriend's vote. I don't see the benefit in their proposal, but it's not an unsubstantiated vote based upon personal preference. I've seen plenty of deletion discussions where the closer didn't look at arguments, but on a vote count (keep because "Science-fiction is a big aspect of many people's lives"? C'mon). Feel free to engage my other comments though! soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Perhaps editors participating in this debate could answer the question whether the concept of "films about outer space" is notable or not. If it is, this list should be kept. If it isn't, this is listcruft.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- there doesn't seem to be a useful reason to replicate the category, the list is extraordinarily crufty, and the whole concept hinges on the ambiguity between films that are set in space and films in which space is the major focus. Reyk YO! 10:22, 23 May 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) 15:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Murphy (journalist)

Thomas Murphy (journalist) (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 cannot identify any chunk of work devoting any significant treatment to this person. There are a handful of news sources indicating the Polk award but I didn't see anything related to an Emmy award from a secondary source. Certainly, nothing providing a full bio (or several) of any sort.

Additionally, a user claiming to be the subject has previously attempted to

WP:PROD
the article.

Am happy to end up with e.g. a redirect to the Polk awards list, but that doesn't strike me as necessary. This should be deleted per the

WP:GNG. Izno (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 03:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 03:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 03:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:54, 21 May 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. As this is a BLP, it would be good if User:Duffbeerforme's references could make their way into the article. A Traintalk 07:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy Whittington

Buddy Whittington (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'm not sure what to make of this. It's a long-standing article about a guitarist that doesn't appear to have any evidence of meeting

WP:GARAGE attempt, but without the hype. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 06:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 06:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clark, Keith (30 November 2012), "Magical blues performance; Buddy Whittington. The Tunnels", Bristol Evening Post
Clark, Keith (3 December 2009), "Now buddy's top banana in his bunch", Bristol Evening Post
and articles such as
"John The Revelator haalt Bluesbreaker Buddy Whittington naar Bluestrain", IJmuider Courant, 10 May 2010 (Dutch)
"Buddy Whittington y Santiago Campillo, dos clásicos en Avilés", El Comercio Online, 13 October 2017 (Spanish)
Argiolas, Carlo (11 July 2012), "Buddy Whittington, ecco il blues d'autore", Unione Sarda (Italian)
Not that much but enough for MUSIC#1. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Did you find those online? ~Anachronist (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article certainly serves our educational and informational purposes, as I see it. Established sources verify history. Retaining the article
    improves Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 16:32, 25 May 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. MBisanz talk 00:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Premier Biosoft

AfDs for this article:
Premier Biosoft (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:BEFORE search returns lots of press release material but no independent coverage. The article is supported by references that are either their own website, or in the first case, a broken link. Most of the external links are also broken. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 15:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 15:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:23, 23 May 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Binayak Giri

Binayak Giri (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)

Unremarkable U-16 Cricket player, Fails

WP:CRICKET Notability guidelines - " Youth players (e.g. members of under-19 teams) are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG." Razer(talk) 09:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:51, 21 May 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. MBisanz talk 00:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vidalenolone

Vidalenolone (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)

All chemical compounds must meet the

general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia. This one does not. It does not appear in the chemical literature beyond the description of it being identified. A Google search turns up nothing more than routine/automated database listings. There is literally nothing more to be said about this chemical compound than what's written in this one sentence stub. We can say it has been identified and really nothing more. ChemNerd (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 14:49, 21 May 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz talk 00:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Psalm 1, the Christ Junkie

Psalm 1, the Christ Junkie (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)

Importance of subject and it's notability. Sources turn out to be personal blogs and social media. This seems to be a public relation work or advertisement. The awards are mostly from event organized by the subject. →Enock4seth (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 15:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 13:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. A Traintalk 07:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newell W. Spicer

Newell W. Spicer (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:COATRACK stuff. A biography article needs in-depth coverage and there's none. 8 or 800 trivial mentions do not add up to significant coverage in reliable sources and there's nothing that can be done about that. This article should be deleted & then redirected to his unit. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's tricky to see what content could be used for a merge - it's all run-of-the-mill stuff ("Spicer was a captain before his promotions" for example - the reference for that actually says he's a Lieutenant, but never mind) so at best, all it does is prove that he existed. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And
1st Regiment Kansas Volunteer Infantry is filled with run of the mill detail. We could definitely expand coverage there to a paragraph - and it definitely makes sense to leave a redirect to there.Icewhiz (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with you about the Redirect, and I suggested it in my nomination as it's the sensible target. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Newell W. Spicer came to Kansas from Pennsylvania in 1856 with an emigrant party from Chicago. He arrived in Topeka August 13, and immediately joined with the attack on Fort Saunders. During the remainder of the struggle he was continually in the field, rising from the rank of first lieutenant of the Chicago company to the office of adjutant. He became a member of the Stubbs company, and was elected third lieutenant in 1859. He entered the Civil War as first lieutenant of Company D, First regiment Kansas Volunteer infantry in 1861, and was promoted to captain in 1862. In June, 1863, he rose to the rank of colonel."
  • "It is doubtful whether any similar organization had a sterner record of service in the Civil War than did the Stubbs. When President Lincoln called for troops in May, 1861, they responded immediately. After filling their ranks they proceeded to Fort Leavenworth, where they were mustered into the First regiment of Kansas Volunteer infantry. In completing the organization of the regiment, lots were drawn for rank and that of "D" fell to the Stubbs. The company's officers were F. B. Swift, [10] captain, N. W. Spicer, [11] first lieutenant, and Caleb S. Pratt, [12] second lieutenant. On June 12 orders were issued for six companies of the First regiment to proceed to Wyandotte. Much to the disgust of the Stubbs they were left behind, due to the illness of Captain Swift and the absence of Lieutenant Spicer. [13] But the delay was only for a few days and soon the whole force was under orders to march."
  • "Within two months after organization the First regiment engaged in its first major battle at Wilson creek, one of the most important battles in the West. In this engagement hard fighting fell to the First Kansas and the First Missouri infantry, both of which suffered terrible losses. It is recorded that the Stubbs here displayed the greatest bravery, being one of six companies of the First Kansas ordered by Col. George W. Deitzler to engage a rebel force four times their number. [14] Lieutenant Spicer, who took command after Captain Swift was wounded, wrote of the battle: "At one stroke the officers of our company all fell but myself. After Captain Swift was wounded and disabled, I took command . . . . We were exposed to a galling fire from two directions for over three hours. The men fell around me in every direction. There was a perfect storm of iron and lead. But our men never flinched or moved until ordered. Thirty of our company were killed and wounded, although I only reported 24." He also quoted Maj. S. D. Sturgis as saying, "The Kansas boys are doing the best fighting I ever saw before." [16] In his official report."
I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before. A bunch of passing mentions do not add up to Significant Coverage and every example you just provided meets the definition of "passing mention". An in-depth biography of the person is what is required for a Wikipedia biography article. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are playing pretty fast and loose with the words "brief" and "mentions". FloridaArmy (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that the sources I could not access are now readable. Thanks to whoever improved the source links! It seems to me that the article now passes
    WP:GNG. Sitush, you've posted before--I don't understand your reference to a "suicide pact" at all. It's just AFD, no one should get hurt here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Read
    WP:PACT. We should not let AGF take precedence over the integrity of the project. And, no, I do not believe those sources are now suddenly readable. They're almost certainly different sources to those that you were referring to (and, yes, I am aware that this is assuming bad faith - that is because you're making similar comments elsewhere & thus there is a pattern of sorts). As for GNG, I think you need to read that, too, because you're not explaining why this complies with it. - Sitush (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I just read
    WP:PACT three times... don't understand how it applies here (or anywhere actually). It's clear that you don't understand my statements and on top of that you admit to assuming bad faith with me. Therefore I choose to be done with discussing this matter. Let the closer choose the best result, I'm happy whatever it is.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I'd also like to know which specific sources are referred to. You can't just assume sources exist at AfD. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Has a short biography in the Kansas Historical Quarterly in the notes on page 130 ([13]). This isn't a clear ANYBIO, but provides enough material that, combined with more passing mentions, I think an article on him can pass WP:V/WP:NPOV/WP:NOR. A couple of points not in the article: He was a marshall in Lawrence after the war and a candidate before.[14][15][16][17] He, apparently, disappeared in 1871.[18] Smmurphy(Talk) 19:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He was a marshall, you mean like a sheriff? Your voice-translation software wrote "martial". --Doncram (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, fixed. Smmurphy(Talk) 09:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Smmurphy, assuming good faith on their sources (which are behind Newspapers.com paywall for me). And in general this seemed marginally notable to me already, when I commented above (after nomination and a Delete vote which was changed later to Redirect). --Doncram (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if my links above were unclear, I want to point out that the newspaper.com links are all passing (with the possible exception of the 1910 article). I've added them and their information to the main article, so you can see them as clippings there. I've also reorganized the article a bit. Finally, I want to invited people to check out
WP:TWL for gratis accounts with various resources including newspapers.com! Smmurphy(Talk) 20:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
They're mostly tripe, though, aren't they? People are scraping the barrel here, eg: we seem to be saying that he left the army, became a marshall and then left the police all in the space of 6 months in 1869 yet - woo-hoo - it is very important to note that he was involved with chasing someone during that time. It's trivia at the extreme, an assemblage of passing mentions etc. Another example is the mention to whom he reported while in the army. And he was one of those who was going to transport William Quantrill except the person in question wasn't in fact Quantrill. Who gives a crap? He doesn't seem to meet
WP:NSOLDIER, except perhaps #5 if a company is considered to be suitably large, which I think is dubious. This inclusionism gone mad. - Sitush (talk) 11:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Just to clarify #5 of WP:NSOLDIER - He would have had to command a division at least for that to apply - a company is 3 levels below that. I agree with you about the trivia - since when do we create an article about a random name we've read somewhere & then throw sources at it until something sticks? It's mind-boggling. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It struck me that my previous comment may be seen as an argument that he is encyclopedic because of NSOLDIER #8, "as an authoritative source on military matters/writing." I did not mean this, I think he is encyclopedic because the article cites RS, is V/NPOV/NOR, and because Spicer receives borderline significant coverage in Caldwell 1937 and Cova 2016, is found to be worth mentioning in a variety of other sources, was a highly ranked although not a flag officer in the civil war, and was a martialmarshal (a minor elected public office) in a time an era where that position was very public and a position that place an outsized role in modern memory. Smmurphy(Talk) 13:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of writers of historic primary documents are not notable in their own right, even if cited by others. In fact, probably most fall into that category and if they are notable in their own right then the citers usually provide significant background/life detail (and we would use that as the source for the bio). Merely citing deposited papers does not make for notability. I'm also curious about your addition including the words "are an important reference in research on ..." - does the source actually say that they are "important" or is that just your conclusion? A quote would be handy. - Sitush (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Thanks for your question and pointing out my OR. Regarding whether the importance of the Hyatt papers and Newells contribution to them, I've added a citation to the discussion of the papers in the Kansas Historical Quarterly (1881) with Newell's included as an example states that, "Examples ... here given ... indicate their character and value as materials of Kansas history". As you can see, this is quite an old citation, but the continued use of the papers and of this set of selections from the papers indicates to me that it remains true today. I don't think the Hyatt Collection or any manuscript in it is itself notable, sorry to have been unclear.
I should note that I agree with the idea the two sources that cover the individual in any depth do not cover him in very much depth. I also agree that beyond that he has held a number of positions and done a number of things that don't quite satisfy a number of SNGs. To reiterate, for me, an article that nearly satisfies a number of guidelines for being a suitable subject of an article and satisfies WP:N on only a very broad reading but clearly does or can satisfy our
core content policies and which is written in an encyclopedic tone, contains more than trivial information about a subject, and does not fail COATRACK/NOT/PROMO can often be a suitable subject for the encyclopedic. The point isn't that we should allow for article writers to skirt as close as they can to our guidelines and policies as they wish. Rather, I feel that this article seems encyclopedic enough (he played many minor roles, we have RS on much of his life, etc). Smmurphy(Talk) 15:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I'd add that this is yet more of the HISTRS stuff I mentioned above. The source that is cited for the "important" phrase is itself from 1932. I'm presuming these state history societies have some merit but it would be good to know whether the writers of the various sources had any relevant academic pedigree or were just enthusiastic amateurs etc. - Sitush (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Malin, the source of the 1932 article, was a professor at the University of Kansas[19]. Martha B. Caldwell, the source of the 1937 article, was librarian for the Kansas Historical Association.(https://www.newspapers.com/image/14829562/?terms=%22Martha%2BB.%2BCaldwell%22) I could not find who was the editor of the Kansas Historical Society Papers in 1881, but guess it was then secretary, Franklin G. Adams - who was also a frontier teacher, lawyer, judge, and state legislator.[20] Smmurphy(Talk) 15:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I'm afraid that this sort of thing confuses me, eg: why a US judge and legislator at state level qualifies as a historian. For example, as I understand it, such people in the US are elected officials and thus instantly have significant bias. That would be ok if they were also accepted in the academic community as historians ... but they're usually not. This sort of thing strikes me as "professionalism" via the back door. But what do I know? The workings of the US never cease to confuse me, as I am sure applies in the opposite direction! - Sitush (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Adams would qualify as a reliable historian. His stature, expertise, and experience is more that of a respected antiquarian living in the same period in the Eastern US or the UK. Officers of a historical society of that period would generally not be automatically considered to have great expertise, and should be used with caution. The nature of the material we are using in this article is such that I am not overly concerned. But if we added great detail about the events in Kansas in 1856, we shouldn't use such old sources as their were conflicting accounts and I wouldn't trust a 1881 source to pick one that fits with our contemporary beliefs. Caldwell was a well published librarian/archivist and I think her respectability as a historian are fairly good given her era. Malin's qualifications are clearer, although any source could have problems and I am not familiar with his work generally and don't know if there are any red flags. Smmurphy(Talk) 00:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unusually well documented for a lieutenant colonel, was clearly of some prominence in frontier Kansas. That he has been mentioned in RS articles years after his disappearance attests to secondary notability, fulfilling
    WP:GNG. I do not see these as trivial considering that the articles in question have several sentences on Spicer. Kges1901 (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I apologise for the confusion. My point was not that the sources are from newspapers, merely that scattered short mentions do not notability make and, indeed, I appear to have better coverage than Spicer due to a double-page spread as well as mentions in a couple of books. - Sitush (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Where was he born? When was he born? What are the dates of the important events in his life? Where did he go to school? There's no real depth here, it's just a collection of trivialities. As to his rank - was it a confirmed rank? Acting? Did he actually hold a confirmed commission at all? The information isn't out there. This isn't the Kansas Wikipedia, it's the English-language version of the world's Wikipedia. Let's not start indiscriminately including people that local historical societies don't even have basic birthplace information about. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like all volunteer (non-regular) Union officers in the American Civil War, Spicer held a commission from the governor of his state, for the duration of the regiment's enlistment. Additionally, many volunteer officers have poorly documented early lives, especially those who emigrated or moved like Spicer, see Colton Greene for a Confederate example. Kges1901 (talk) 09:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to census records, he was born in Pennsylvania in about 1830. His own account published in "Selections of the Hyatt Collection" in Collections of the Kansas State Historical Society says he was a "native of Susquahenna County". I'm hesitant to include information from his own account and while I have occasionally used census information in articles, I currently prefer not to. Our information about his disappearance is not really of good quality, as it is hearsay in old newspapers. Information about his rank is pretty standard and is as Kges1901 describes and is in the article. It is true that this article contains more information than any one source and that other than a footnote by Caldwell, there is no other biography-style source about him in the references. I agree that these questions are important and usually feel that the ability to answer them is a good sign of suitability (per NSOLDIER: "If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand-alone article."). Smmurphy(Talk) 09:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh? Even Smmurphy is saying that the sources are not great etc. If this were an article about someone from India, everyone would be clamouring to delete it due to poor sourcing, lack of information etc but because
    it is about a Yank, rose-tinted spectacles are donned. - Sitush (talk) 09:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I know you aren't suggesting I, myself, am inconsistent - as we've discussed this before - But I want to point out that I happen to have !voted similarly on a similarly borderline Indian case recently. I would say that leadership in Bleeding Kansas and the Civil War are slightly better cases for suitability than non-elected leadership in district politics (admittedly, apples and oranges - but so too was your comparison). Smmurphy(Talk) 09:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I !vote the same for American and non-American subjects, though the aversion (with some justification) to Raj era sourcing in India does make sourcing there a bit more difficult there at times for this era. I was previously at merge to the regiment - when what we had was a civil war officer of some note, but not sufficient for standalone. Now we have sourcing relating to the Bleeding Kansas period as well as the subject's accounts themselves being cited as "Hyatt Collection"/"Experiences of N. W. Spicer in Kansas". Merge/Redirect to the regiment no longer fits the bill (as it seems the Bleeding Kansas bit is possibly more significant). SOLDIER just creates a presumption of notability - it does not preclude notability (and is more geared to modern figures - and is particularly not suited for frontier wars - e.g. the more notable William B. Travis - a Lt. Col - A hundred and eighty were challenged by Travis to die / By a line that he drew with his sword as the battle drew nigh Cash (in this version he replaces sword with gun)). The 2E/3E amalgamation here passes GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Use a primary source (the Census) for his date of birth and another primary source for the place? Doesn't that just sum up the problems with this article's subject... Exemplo347 (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. You aren't using the primary sources to establish notability, just source important life events. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 18:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a way of incorporating a birthdate into this article without using
a synthesis of sources, then go ahead. As a side note, nobody has actually said that there's a set 1830 birth date except you. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • A company is not a significant unit. His actions in Bleeding Kansas were slight. The mentions of him are old and mostly parochial. If it can be expanded more, why didn't you do it? This is a mess of your making, as with some many other creations. -
I have been. Many company commanders have articles. He also commanded a regiment later in his career as I noted immediately above your comment. And he had a sinificant role in various battles and raids. If something is "messy" feel free to fix it. That's not grounds for deletion. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:07, 25 May 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. MBisanz talk 00:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shaira Ahmed Khan

Shaira Ahmed Khan (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 film person/model. Her claim to fame is being the wife of a director, and most of the references only point at that. Seems like a paid work, and being the co-producer of a movie with her director husband doesn't satisfy

WP:NFILM Jupitus Smart 13:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of Charm

AfDs for this article:
The Art of Charm (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:SPA created this page and the page about its founder, Jordan Harbinger (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Art_of_Charm&action=history ). I did a Google News search for the entity and they're just passing mentions or name drops. There's no significant coverage as required by WP:CORP. Also, given the fact that the articles was created by a single purpose account 7 years after it was originally deleted, I'm pretty sure there's some foul play here; especially since the user didn't go through AfC. CerealKillerYum (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 12:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 12:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Traintalk 11:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources such as those cited in the article. For example The Guardian article says:
"The Art of Charm podcast can be intimidating. Not just because it’s the work of a lawyer called Jordan Harbinger. Not simply because Jordan has worked out how to weaponise all the many elements of the human personality that go to make up charisma in order to get people to listen to him, be impressed by him or hire him. But mainly because he also has the energy to turn these thoughts into podcasts of frightening intensity. I can’t listen to more than half of the long episodes without having a lie down.
His “minisodes” are easier to take. A lot of it is just common sense – today you should text two people you haven’t texted in a while – but by turning everyday niceness into a matter of iron policy he has become a regular Dale Carnegie of the digital dispensation." FloridaArmy (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. A little more careful examination of the sources cited (or
    stirred up
    ) reveals the following:
The Harvard Business Review gives examples of successful podcast formats, among which it name-drops (once) the Art of Charm (AoC).
All the reports with Shaq in them, e.g. USA Today, Business Insider, Forbes (4/2016), etc, are about Shaq's statements on the Earth being flat, and they simply mention that he spoke on AoC.
The Time article contains viewpoints on storytelling offered by a bunch of people, including the AoC creator. It's not about AoC.
And so on, down the line. -The Gnome (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:36, 6 June 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. MBisanz talk 00:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buildix

Buildix (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 notable, reads like little other than a guide, seems to be discontinued years ago. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 12:48, 21 May 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. MBisanz talk 00:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paranoia (magazine)

Paranoia (magazine) (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 put this up for deletion because it appears to fail general notability guidelines. There are several mentions of accolades that would meet notability guidelines on the page but the only verification I can find is on the homepage of paranoia magazine. If someone could find independent verification of that of that it would confirm that this should not be deleted. as it stands I can find a single mention in the Washington Post from 2008 found here Rap Chart Mike (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:08, 21 May 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. MBisanz talk 00:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scald (band)

Scald (band) (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)

Can't find any evidence of notability in searches. Interviews do not count toward notability (even if the link worked). Does not seem to meet GNG or NBAND. I can't find evidence of this claim of receiving 'critical acclaim' from Terrorizer Magazine and Metal Maniacs. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 04:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 15:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - See the suspicious site here: [21], which appears to be a aggregation of this band's album reviews and magazine articles, but the links go nowhere. The site lists content apparently from Metal Maniacs, Terrorizer, and others, but that text cannot be found on those magazines' official sites. The band appears to be engaged in Internet promotion via fake reviews and listings, of which this WP article is a part. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Do not confuse this band with Scald (Russian band), who have their own notability problems but that is a different debate. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:09, 27 May 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. MBisanz talk 00:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Nurtured Heart Approach

The Nurtured Heart Approach (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)

Original version was an advertisement, subsequently stubbified. But the refs are almost entirely from themselves, so there is no evidence of notability . DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say the current version was promotional; the one written by Sherry Blair in 2011 and elaborated by that editor and some others and present until March 6, 2017 was very highly promotional. GreenMeansGo very properly removed 95% of it, and you just now appropriately removed the paragraph of"Further reading" which is entirely a list of their own publications. This leaves a stub that does not even show notability. Looking at the references:
  1. is their own publication
  2. is the Huffington Post's which is not a RS for notability -- and where the article subject is not even mentioned
  3. is a chapter in a handbook of Character studies. I can not see it, but the material it is used to source in the original article version is about Positive psychological practice in gneral, and apparently not on this topic.
  4. is a youtube lecture by one of the proponents, and is neither reliable nor independent
  5. is the announcement for a single lecture,giving no information about the program
  6. is a press release in Medical News Today from an individual college that does describe the program. But it says right at the top "adapted media release" so it is neither independent nor reliable.
That leaves no usable sources for notability--or, for that matter, even verifiability. No matter how short, there needs to be at least one independent RS that is not a press release. DGG ( talk ) 09:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:53, 21 May 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. MBisanz talk 00:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Nelson (basketball)

Sid Nelson (basketball) (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)

PROD removed, no reason given. Article fails

WP:NBASKETBALL (has never played in a professional league). GiantSnowman 10:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:14, 22 May 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 Mutare#Education. MBisanz talk 00:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baring Primary School

Baring Primary School (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)

Primary school with no evidence of notability. Fails at

WP:GNG. Hitro talk 10:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:00, 22 May 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. The arguments to keep have failed to rebut User:Winged Blades of Godric's analysis of the sources. A Traintalk 07:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neel Bhattacharya

AfDs for this article:
Neel Bhattacharya (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)

Film actors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:ACTORBIO. The subject has appeared in only one notable film ( brief appearance). Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person either so fails GNG. Saqib (talk) 07:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve. Male lead in several notable television series, including one in which he won an award. Although just barely IMO, he does meet the criteria in
    WP:ACTORBIO. -- Ϫ 07:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@OlEnglish: The award is not notable enough, at least by WP standards because it does not have its own standalone page. And I think, both TV shows have no national audience therefore I don't see thier significance. --Saqib (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think they have no national audience? -- Ϫ 21:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--As a native speaker of the language I can confirm that whilst the channel and it's shows has a state-specific audience, the awards ceremony, which is organized by the brodcasting channel, is typical PR Stuff and has zero significance.A few (2) interviews in Bengali entertainment tabloids are located but they do contribute nothing to notability.TOOSOON.~ Winged BladesGodric 17:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Male lead of 2 very notable Bangali television serials in premiere Indian channel ZEE(Bangla). The language medium of the channel being Bengali, is ofcourse watched by people who understand the language that includes people originating from West Bengal in India(spread across the world) and the entire country of Bangladesh. Some shows cater to people speaking a regional language. But Bengalis are present all over the world and the show is watched internationally as well on ZEE(Bangla) USA.The credibility of the Awards Ceremony can be found from many resources on the web.[1] [2]

The awards show certainly has its own website where the whole telecast is present. But it is meant for India's national audience. [3]Other interviews in the media identifies him as the television heartthrob of Bengal. Please translate page. [4]. Also a facebook verified public figure as can be seen from the official page: https://www.facebook.com/Neeltjls/. There are many more articles in Bengali press and bengali media which do not appear directly on Google search because Bengali font being used. [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayoni15 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.esselnewsletter.com/news/facebook-india-partners-with-zee-bangla-for-sonar-sansar.html
  2. ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/bengali/Catch-Sonar-Sansar-Awards-this-Sunday/articleshow/46565569.cms
  3. ^ http://www.ozee.com/videos/event/sonar-sansar-awards-2017-march-5-2017-full-event.html
  4. ^ http://www.anandabazar.com/supplementary/anandaplus/meet-the-new-stars-of-bengali-daily-soaps-1.634215
  5. ^ http://www.tellydhamaal.com/neel-bhattacharya-happy-with-his-role-in-zee-bangla-stree/
NOTE: User:Shayoni15 is creator of the BLP
  • And, obviously, the sources aren't editorially independent:--
    Essel is the parent-corporation of the Zee-Channels.Anyways, that's a press-release, about sponsors et al and I fail to see any relevancy of it.
    OZEE is ZEE's digital broadcast medium.And another irrelevant reference.No body is denying that the award-show did not take place or that the subject wasn't awarded.....
    TellyDhamal is clear-cut unreliable source, with no known editorial policy.I'm quasi-certain that a
    RSN
    discussion has deemed it to be unreliable.
    TOI's ever decreasing editorial integrity continues........(Seriously, who writes This unique family of Zee Bangla has strengthened its relationship with the audiences with every new endeavor. Zee Bangla Sonar Sansar Awards marks the culmination of this journey, filled with love, trust and friendship that has created an everlasting bond.).......The more I'm seeing TOI's coverage in these arenas, the more I'm getting certain about it's new grown love for churnalism.
    As to the Ananda Bazar piece, one of the two interviews, mentioned in my above !vote.See
    WP:INTERVIEW.Fails to establish encyclopedic notability.~ Winged BladesGodric 06:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to WIKIPEDIA, WP:BASIC is met if multiple published sources, reliable,intellectually independent, independent of the subject are available, which can be found in references listed in the article. As WIKIPEDIA also states that for an actor, meeting WP:ENT or WP:GNG might be enough for consideration of notability. Neel Bhattacharya definitely meets WP:ENT. WP:ENT allows that notability may be considered if the actor has"had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" but does not mandate that the subject must also always meet the GNG. In this case, the subject has indeed done lead roles in multiple Bengali Soap Operas, invited as celebrity guest of honour in reality shows, and was part of a couple of Bengali movies, in one of which he has played the main protagonist. Again, according to WIKIPEDIA, Notability is not always a contest to see who is more popular in press. notability does not always depend the depth of coverage of the topic or the individual, nor that it be immediately available online. Having said that, there are multiple press articles listed in the reference section of the page which shows notability of the subject. Subject, being notable in a field where the language is a regional one, coverage is done mostly in Bengali media. Hence some articles do not immediately come up in google search owing to the Bengali font being used in those articles. But according to WIKIPEDIA rules, that shouldnt mean that subject is any less notable. WIKIPEDIA states failing GNG does not exclude him as long as the career is itself properly verified in reliable sources.Here the subject might be partially failing GNG but still meets ENT as there are multiple verifiable resouces establishing his involvement in multiple TV shows.

Subject meets WP:BASIC, WP:ENT and WP:GNG partly - and should receive consideration for inclusion in WIKIPEDIA as one of the leading Bengali Television Soap Opera Male Leads of current times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayoni15 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Note to closing admin: Shayoni15 is the creator of the article and has already !voted above. This vote should thus be considered null and void...[reply]

Atlantic306-Could you please flesh out your comment for the benefit of the readers. I would also like you to read [this comment of TonyBalloni].Thanks — FR+ 07:55, 28 May 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. MBisanz talk 00:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Vela

Cindy Vela (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)

While a working actress, simply doesn't meet the criteria as per wp:nactor. Similarly, while she has had some press, all of the in-depth coverage is in regards to her dating Sutherland. Notability is not inherited. Absent that coverage, not enough in-depth coverage to show she passes

WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 19:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 19:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:11, 21 May 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. MBisanz talk 00:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe Player

Fringe Player (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 horse is not notable per

WP:NHORSERACING. He has not won any major races or titles. He has not received significant media coverage (I could find no media coverage), and has not sired any notable horses (and depending on the age of gelding may have sired no foals). The relatedness of the horse to other notable horses does not make him notable. DferDaisy (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 03:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 03:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 03:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz Humbug! 09:03, 21 May 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. A Traintalk 21:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Zundel

Irene Zundel (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:CREATIVE--no works in permanent collection of major museums, no substantial third party critical studies. DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article does not need to meet CREATIVE. It does pass GNG, however, with her and her works being featured in several RS in Spanish. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment I'm not quite sure what to make of it. There's some coverage that looks OK, like the article in El Pais, but other things bother me. What, for example, is the "Premio Italia per L'arte"? It could be all kinds of things: If it is the "Premio Italia Arte Contemporanea" it:Premio MAXXI that might be a good indicator for notability, but I don't think it is, and I can't find any record of Zundel receiving that award. There are other problems: The list of exhibits is vague to the point where it's difficult to ascertain the significance of the exhibit, "2017–2018: Berlin Germany (Jenseits Des Sichtbaren" doesn't tell us it that it was the inaugural exhibit at the "Instituto Cultural de México en Alemannia", which appears to have an exhibition space in the Mexican embassy in Berlin. If so, being selected to represent one's country might be a significant form of recognition. Vexations (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vexations: The source for the award is here. Also, remember, she doesn't need to pass CREATIVE. She only needs to pass GNG which she does. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Megalibrarygirl That source says: "Irene se hizo acreedora al premio Italia Per L’Arte", without any further details. Before I agree that that establishes notability, I'd like to make sure which award that is, that it is in fact a notable award. Zundel has participated in exhibitions that are not mentioned in the article, but that are notorious vanity events, like the Florence Biennale. I'm not one to take just about any source as an indication that a subject is notable per GNG, I want to make sure that the source is correct. For now, before I commit to keep, I'd like to see some evidence that the "premio Italia Per L’Arte" exist, is notable, and when Zundel won it. And if I'm going to consider a list of exhibitions, I'd like to see the name of the venue, the location, a date, and an independent, reliable source, not the artist's own bio. I'm not sure if it's just sloppy or deliberately vague, but I don't like it. Vexations (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations I'm not sure about that prize. Trying to research prizes in different languages is not my area of expertise. Ipigott is a polyglot and may be able to weigh in here on the prize. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Megalibrarygirl But it is my area. I've contributed quite a bit to articles about art awards, and while I am not fluent in Spanish and Italian, I understand both well enough to read an article about a topic in an area I am familiar with. I find it a bit disconcerting that you accept a source as contributing to meeting the GNG while unable to evaluate a source that is in an area that is admittedly outside your area of expertise. If your support is based on a source that you cannot read and whose veracity or reliability you are not competent to evaluate, that ought to be clearer from your support statement. It seems pretty likely that thehappening.com (it says about itself "estamos presentes en los mejores eventos de la Ciudad de México en compañía de las marcas más exclusivas" is not a reliable source and that the mention of the award is copied straight from her bio at http://www.irenezundel.com/biografia.html including the unusual capitalization of Per and L' in Per L'arte. As far as I can tell, the Premio Italia per l'arte is a vanity award given out by the "Vetrina internazionale degli artisti latino americani" at a fair in the Palazzo degli Affari in Florence. It is not the same as the Premio Italia Arte Contemporanea that I mentioned above and it is not a notable award. Vexations (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think your skepticism is well-founded if you are going by WP:CREATIVE. However I also think MLG is correct that the artist meets GNG, even if some sources appear sketchy.104.163.139.33 (talk) 06:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations I don't thinkThe Happening is a great source. It was the one I found that had the award so I could cite it while I fixing up the article. I do think that the other sources, such as El Unversal, El Siglo de Torreon, El Pais, & La Jornada San Luis are reliable sources that help establish GNG. I think you're too hung up on trying to establish CREATIVE rather than looking at GNG for this article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Megalibrarygirl and DGG, genuine question: why do we bother with WP:CREATIVE if we are only going to selectively apply it? If GNG Suffices, why do we even bother with WP:CREATIVE? A sincere question...104.163.139.33 (talk) 00:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Generally notability seems to have been established.--Ipigott (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, albeit reluctantly. Of the notable sources (those that have their own Wikipedia article), the El Pais source is OK. The article in
    WP:ARTIST in almost every conceivable way and really ought to be completely rewritten to address the gross errors and misstatements in the sources. Vexations (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Why don't you apply some
WP:TNT then?104.163.139.33 (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The relationship of NCREATIVE and the GNG has never been settled. My own opinion is that NCREATIVE is and should be an added requirement, except in cases where the notability as an artist is subsidiary to notability otherwise. The alternative way of looking at it is that NCREATIVE shows presumed notability, in the sense that we do not need to concern ourselves if the standard at GNG is unambiguously met--this is necessary because the key words in the GNG, particularly independent and substantialare capable of ambiguous interpretations. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My take on the secondary criteria is that they should be used only when GNG cannot be successfully applied. This happens occasionally and can be useful when GNG can't be satisfied, but we're pretty sure we're dealing with a notable person in their field. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
and on what basis do you think we can be "sure" of that? I thought whether the subject is "notable" is what we are trying to determine. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. It would seem that there is no established policy for the use of WP:NCREATIVE.104.163.139.33 (talk) 21:11, 25 May 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. A Traintalk 21:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Héctor Ireta de Alba

Héctor Ireta de Alba (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)

Voice actor who has voiced the lead in Spanish translations of children's TV shows (like

WP:NACTOR criteria someday if he gets another lead role. The question is, do his roles overcome the dearth of significant coverage? ~Anachronist (talk) 06:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:50, 22 May 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. The delete arguments, as well as the replies to the two blocked sockpuppet 'keep' comments (which weren't based on Wikipedia policy), are convincing. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pra Sempre Teu

Pra Sempre Teu (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 non-notable recording by a notable group. Fails

WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
missfortune 06:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
missfortune 06:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
missfortune 06:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 13 May 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. Excepting User:Agathoclea, the keep arguments are very light on policy. A Traintalk 21:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018 United Kingdom heat wave

April 2018 United Kingdom heat wave (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 isn't the weather channel. A single day of record-breaking heat (at less than 30C) isn't notable.

π, ν) 04:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 06:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 06:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 06:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I live in the Midlands and I was walking about without a jacket for those few days (have done today as well as a matter of fact), so it did extend beyond London and the South East. This is Paul (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It was a historic 'very marked' hot spell. I think that anything to do with record breaking (or near record breaking) heat or cold is noteworthy because, it is historical. This story was published in many articles and shown on national television. The fact that you never stopped wearing a jacket is not my fault. I am in the North of England and it was hot here too. It isn't my fault that you didn't experience heat. 14:33, 5 May 2018 (BST)
Whose input is the above? -The Gnome (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
new editor, and article creator,
tildes. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Record-breaking on its own does not confer notability. We need
personal testimony. The meteorological service is quite clear, as competent authorities go: A small statistical blip. May you all walk about in full health, jacket or no jacket. -The Gnome (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
OK, here's some to be going on with. They talk about the hottest April day since 1949, and the impact on this year's London Marathon:
Hope this helps. This is Paul (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's more like it. See what a little needling can do? Carry on. -The Gnome (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. I see this is quite badly sourced, including a source from the Met Office Twitter account. I'll have a go at adding some of the references tomorrow. As I've mentioned in my post below this one, if we keep this it may have to move. I suggest something like Spring 2018 United Kingdom heat wave. Since there may be more than one to deal with there may be a better title than that. This is Paul (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Met Office is now reporting more record temperatures, with the hottest May Bank Holiday since the day was made a public holiday in 1978:
I'm slightly reluctant to begin work on this while the AFD discussion is open because I don't want to put a load of effort into it only to find it gets deleted next weekend. Instead I'm going to take a copy of what's there and put it in my userspace, because I believe the information here will ultimately need to be part of a wider article anyway. This is Paul (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So now it's an April/May heatwave. With a little patience we can add June, too, in our Weatherpedia. -The Gnome (talk)
Spring is here...I hear. This is Paul (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is wikipedia, not USpedia. US standards are irrelevant here. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, do you have a link for USpedia? -The Gnome (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - If this title is standard for heat waves, is there a good reason why we can not redirect it with history? --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We better hurry up with this AfD, then, before the gods get even angrier. -The Gnome (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all the above comments. Even in the UK a period of warm weather lasting five days isn't notable enough to be in an encyclopaedia. Neiltonks (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not news, and this is what all the cold spell and heat wave articles add up to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "highest April temperatures since 1949" are hardly worth noting. Is the United Kingdom temperature so uniform that we are really to believe that the same records apply in northern Scotland as in London? I find that hard to believe.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The argument "routine coverage" does not cut it, as this is not a systensis out of regularly published temperature data but coverage of reporting on an outstanding event. The argument "in the US this does not count as a heatwave" does not count. -5C in the Antartic might count as a heatwave. We count notability by RS-coverage and not by arbitrary values (Any SNG rules that we do have use arbitrary values as a presumption that such coverage exits). The British obsesion with the weather is also no anti-argument, only an explanation of why certain things get covered in the media that would not get covered elsewhere. But interestingly that obsession travels well as elsewhere we see coverage of the British weather when the same type of weather "at home" would not be covered. All in all - Notability != importance, only coverage. Agathoclea (talk) 09:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify your conclusion? Do you mean that notability "does not equal" (or "signify") importance? And what does "only coverage" mean? Do you mean that just having sources/coverage guarantees inclusion? If so, it doesn't.
Let's all recall that notability alone does not a subject worthy of a Wikipedia article make. To quote from the relevant rule, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. (Emphasis in the original.)
Particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, we are told. From what we know
so far, the contested subject is but information indiscriminately wiggled inside Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
More relevant is also
WP:NOTNEWS. Even if something gets a lot coverage in news sources, that coverage might not be sufficient to make an encyclopedic article, and WP doesn't have an article about everything that gets reported in the news, for example not every single one of Trump's tweets is reported on WP, even if they all get extensive mentions in news sources. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. A Traintalk 20:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Sud Ladies Cup

2018 Sud Ladies Cup (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)

Non-notable sports competition. I cannot find any sufficient sources to justify GNG. Furthermore, these matches are not listed by FIFA. For ex. the Haiti team [23]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 10:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 10:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 10:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 10:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 10:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 10:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 10:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in
talk) 10:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 10:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Again you fail to even remotely check. The link also shows u-20 matches. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is you who has once again failed to do an ounce of
WP:BEFORE. That link doesn't even show the U-20 qualifiers. It's obviously not intended to be a complete list of U-20 matches. Smartyllama (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The nominator asserts in this edit [24] that a subject is not notable if it's not proven to be so in the first few hits of a google search. So, presumably, if the first few hits are primary sources, mirrors, blogs, etc, there is no need to search any further, we should just delete it. That's a fallacious argument even when the subject is in your language, but far more so when it's not. It's a terrible approach that guarantees disruption,
talk) 20:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see any benefit to deleting an article like this right before the event happens. The article is short and informational, doesn't seem promotional, would be helpful to someone interested, and the event takes place in nine days. It doesn't seem in line with the spirit of Wikipedia to delete it now right when the information would be most helpful to people. Lonehexagon (talk) 14:56, 27 May 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. Even if we discount the participation of Robertgombos there's no consensus to delete this article. A Traintalk 20:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Directory

Jasmine Directory (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 website. It doesn't appear to have attracted substantial coverage in reliable sources, as required to meet

WP:NWEB. It was created by an undisclosed paid editor and since maintained by the site owner. SmartSE (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can improve The article was substantially improved by adding more reliable citations as highlighted in my last comment. I would like to improve the article using (some of) the references listed below, if I am allowed because of my COI. I won't touch any of the current statements, neither add more - since the {{request edit}} template is the proper way for doing that. I only want to know if I am allowed to backup certain statements created by other editors before the article got through the AfC process. Some of the edits proposed via two separate Edit Requests were answered and implemented. Also, ce, cleanup and NPOV addresed by independent editors and one admin. Robertgombos (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

Moreover, I'd like to share my opinion on this issue. I hope you won't get bored reading the entire story, often I'm asked to shut up because I tend to talk too much. So, please accept my apologies. I have this Wikipedia account for about 5 years. As I already stated on my User page, I have been an editor at the AOL's Former ODP project DMOZ (Closed; relaunched as "Curlie"), where I'm an editor. Last year, in May, I have discovered (got a visitor or two originating from Wikipedia, saw it in Google Analytics) that there is an entry for Jasmine Directory.

After the entry was created other editors improved it and verified the sources, corrected some errors. Then, more editors came and restructured entirely the (already) published page, corrected some more errors and verified again the sources. I haven't touched the article at all. On 5 July 2017, 13:28, the article was moved to the Draft space and the {{connected contributor}} and {{notability}} tags were added to the entry. Yes, it's my standard procedure as well if I suspect something when reviewing articles.

Back then, I headed to the Teahouse section asking around on how to proceed. One of the administrators, DESiegel, on his talk page on 12:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC) said: (citing: "If you choose to declare your conflict of interest openly, on the talk page of the draft, or on your own user page, or both you may add sources to the draft. You may then ask for an AFC review of the draft. From there on things will be up to the reviewer.". I've followed entirely the COI procedure, by adding the required {{connected contributor}} to the draft's talk page as well as an extended disclosure to my User Page and the proper tag as well.[reply]

(Here is a link to the discussion).

Until that point, I haven't edited Jasmine Directory at all.

So, as I was advised to, I began working on the draft. When I finished, I used the MirC channel and requested for help from other editors to take a look and let me know if something got out of my sight. Another editor, Howicus, suggested me to remove two references and a statement. I did that too as it's visible in the edits history log.

I submitted the draft to the AfC process as DESiegel suggested "you may add sources to the draft. You may then ask for an AFC review of the draft. From there on things will be up to the reviewer" as well as per WP:COIEDIT "you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;". One of the AfC reviewers, SwisterTwister, at 22:46 on 12 July 2017, reviewed and accepted the submission. Extract from the entry edit history log:

[SwisterTwister moved page Draft:Jasmine Directory to Jasmine Directory: Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission (AFCH 0.9)]

After that step, I only corrected a few punctuation errors, added four more references and corrected minor typos (I haven’t altered in any way the meaning of any phrase or statement previously approved during the AfC process.). That was all my contribution to the already checked and approved entry (and it stayed that way, I haven't touched the entry) and I consider (and I hope I’m right) that I've respected WP:PSCOI: "If there's a mistake in your article: For minor spelling, grammar, or entirely uncontentious factual corrections, fix it yourself (click Edit at the top right of the page and Save your changes). For any substantial changes, or changes that anyone might find contentious, seek input from other editors and let them decide whether to do it."

Below are some highlights from the page edits history to sustain what I've said so far. However, feel free to parse the entire history logs on the entries’ page.


  • 21:40, 10 May 2017? Julyo (talk | contribs) . . (5,835 bytes) (+132) . . (copy-editing) (undo)
  • 00:40, 11 May 2017? Julyo (talk | contribs) . . (6,187 bytes) (+352) . . (checked some references) (undo)
  • 01:14, 12 May 2017? Nsk92 (talk | contribs) . . (6,213 bytes) (+26) . . (Added tags to the page using Page Curation (orphan)) (undo)

...

  • 13:28, 5 July 2017, Justlettersandnumbers (talk | contribs) . . (8,634 bytes) (+95) . . (AFC draft (via script)) (undo)
  • 13:28, 5 July 2017, Justlettersandnumbers (talk | contribs) m . . (8,539 bytes) (0) . . (Justlettersandnumbers moved page Jasmine Directory to Draft:Jasmine Directory without leaving a redirect: Undersourced, incubate in draftspace (via script)) (undo)
  • 13:28, 5 July 2017, Justlettersandnumbers (talk | contribs) . . (8,539 bytes) (+63) . . (Added {{COI}} and {{notability}} tags to article (TW)) (undo)

...

  • 21:23, 12 July 2017, Robertgombos (talk | contribs) . . (10,414 bytes) (-2,463)? . . (Removing two statements and the related references as Howicus suggested on the IRC channel "It reads sort of like an attempt to pitch web directories to the reader".) (undo)
  • 21:35, 12 July 2017, Robertgombos (talk | contribs) . . (10,565 bytes) (+151)? . . (undo)
  • 22:04, 12 July 2017, Robertgombos (talk | contribs) . . (10,800 bytes) (+235)? . . (Fixed minor formatting and stylistic issues.) (undo)
  • 22:46, 12 July 2017, SwisterTwister (talk | contribs) m . . (10,800 bytes) (0) . . (SwisterTwister moved page Draft:Jasmine Directory to Jasmine Directory: Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission (AFCH 0.9)) (undo)
  • 00:26, 13 July 2017, Robertgombos (talk | contribs) . . (10,771 bytes) (-29)? . . (Hist meege request) (undo)
  • 04:14, 13 July 2017, Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) . . (10,733 bytes) (-38)? . . (Draft:Jasmine Directory has only one edit, and that edit is a redirect.) (undo)
  • 07:47, 13 July 2017, Robertgombos (talk | contribs) . . (10,739 bytes) (+6)? . . (minor spacing fix.) (undo)
  • 07:55, 13 July 2017, Robertgombos (talk | contribs) . . (10,735 bytes) (-4)? . . (Categories not showing correctly for some reason) (undo)
  • 19:29, 13 July 2017, Howicus (talk | contribs) . . (10,673 bytes) (-62)? . . (Removing AFC template) (undo)

...

So, basically, the article was created, moved to draft, I've placed the COI tags properly as suggested, improved the draft as proposed, suggested it via the AfC process as suggested and it was approved. I've followed strictly the WP:COIEDIT procedure and corrected some extra commas, empty spaces. And that was it.

Yesterday, the entry was AfD-ed and once again the {{COI}} and {{notability}} tags were added.

...

(cur | prev) 22:46, 30 April 2018 Smartse (talk | contribs) . . (12,839 bytes) (+430) . . (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmine Directory. (TW)) (undo) (cur | prev) 22:43, 30 April 2018 Smartse (talk | contribs) . . (12,409 bytes) (+59) . . (Added {{COI}} and {{notability}} tags to article (TW)) (undo)


I thought the {{COI}} issue was solved when I placed the {{connected contributor}} tag on the entry's talk page and my User page and got through the AfC process and the examination of my edits history. It seems that I was wrong...!?


As for the {{notability}} tag (an issue which during the AfC review process was reviewed), over the last year I've gathered several sources and references (some totally independent, some representing various writer's or university publication's opinion), in addition to the ones already listed ones on the article's page. In some references below, there are comprehensive full-page reviews and opinions focusing solely on the topic, in others there are only several phrases referring to the topic (I don't count on those too much).

There are a few books referencing the already live statements from the live entry, one written in Turkish and four others in Romanian.[1][2][3][4][5]

Here's a journal, as well.[6]

Other sources besides the above ones, and the several books and journals already cited on the Wikipedia existing entry, here are several sources that are not mentioned (some of them, yes, might be considered trivial mentions, however, most web directories listed under the Category:Web directories category could all easily fall under WP:WEB because a web directory is a source of mainly manually human-added resources and anyone writing about them includes a review of more than one. So, many articles, books, journals are mentioning them in various contexts providing only a few phrases about them.

There are as well several comprehensive independent reviews made by various industry influencers, independent of the subject, with a (decent to high) reputation ; however, all listed resources state no more encyclopedic information than what's already listed on Jasmine Directory or maybe some information [like the benefits of the directory] which, in my opinion might sound like advertisement (eg. very good, excellent, etc) and definitely Wikipedia it's not a good fit for that kind of subjective opinions). Here are some of the references.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39]

Here are some more independent reviews by The WebDirectoryReviews.Org, as per WP:INDEPENDENT, of Jasmine Directory. The organization used to scale and rate 80-90 directories each quarter. Jasmine Directory was rated among the top 10 eight times out of eight different reviews. Unfortunately, the resource is not operating anymore; however, I managed to get some archives from the Internet Archive:

  1. Feb 3013 Review
  2. Jun 2013 Review
  3. Sep 2013 Review
  4. Nov 2013, Review
  5. Mar 2014, Review
  6. Jun 2014, Review
  7. Dec 2014, Review
  8. Sep 2015, Review

With all due respect, I consider that I have just followed the instructions given by the editors and administrators during this entire process. There is a lot to learn by reading all the policies and I am committed to further improve my editing capabilities (please see my Articles I created section from my User page).

I would like to use the {{request edit}} template to address the highlighted issue, however, I think it's wiser to deal with this Afd first given the COI related circumstances. Besides, there isn't much information that could be added to the already published statements besides various appreciations from the cited books and articles. The web based references mainly sustain what is already published on the (still) live article.

I know how COI editors are seen on Wikipedia, and if you feel like I violated any policy by following the instruction I've talked about, please feel free to express your opinions accordingly. I am very well aware of the standard procedure.

Ever since, I've improved some and created some Art related entries which you may find highlighted on my User Page. Thank you for reading this.

References

  1. ISBN 978-6059118743
    . Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  2. ISBN 978-606-26-0607-7
    .
  3. ISBN 9786061205646
    .
  4. ISBN 9786062605339
    .
  5. ISBN 978-606-26-0506-3
    .
  6. ^ Nicolae, Mirela (August 2016). "Afacerea, arta preferata a artistocratilor" [Business, the Art of Aristocrats]. Sinteza. 31. Manpres: 43–44.
  7. ^ "Reviewing Jasmine Directory". www.searchenginecolossus.com. Search Engine Colossus. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  8. ^ Summers, Kate (27 April 2018). "Get Listed: 10 Web Directories that Bring Traffic". Kikolani. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  9. ^ Muresan, Claudiu (3 November 2017). "Jasmine Directory Review". airsassociation.org. AIRS Association. Archived from the original on May 4, 2018. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  10. ^ Mattern, Jennifer (15 November 2017). "Jasmine Directory Under the Microscope". WebDirectoryList.com. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  11. ^ Saleem, Hasan (19 February 2018). "Directories Worth Considering for a Healthy Marketing Campaign". Social Implications. Retrieved 6 May 2018. In today's post, Jasmine Directory will be analyzed [...]
  12. ^ Glenn, Kelly. "Local and Business Web Directories; Academic Search Engines". h2o.law.harvard.edu. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  13. ^ "The Development of Web Directories: Jasmine Directory". www.avivadirectory.com. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  14. ^ Delonix, Kidal (19 September 2016). "Is Jasmine Directory One of the Best Google Compliant Web Directories Model?". Lera Blog. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  15. ^ Jonaely, Rosarito. "Surviving the Internet - Best Local and Business Directories in 2018". scalar.usc.edu. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  16. ^ Eaves, David. "Jasmine Directory". The SEO Company. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  17. ^ "Google Compliant Web Directories: A Review of Jasmine Directory". Quantum Books. 3 October 2016. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  18. ^ Delonix, Kidal (19 September 2016). "Best Web Directories in 2016". Lera Blog. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  19. ^ Fox, Anna (27 April 2018). "How to Start Building Your New Site Authority Using High-Traffic and Niche Web Directories". Blogging Tips. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  20. ^ Scocco, Daniel (2014). "Top 7 Web Directories for 2014". www.dailyblogtips.com. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  21. ^ Millett, Jeff (23 September 2015). "10 Best Web Directories for SEO". TheSEOWhiz.com. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  22. ^ "Web Directory Coupons, Promos, and Discounts". SBWebCenter. SBWC. 6 June 2017. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  23. ^ "Are Web Directories Still Relevant in 2017?". SBWebCenter. 23 August 2017. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  24. ^ "SEO, Marketing Still Benefit from Human Editing at Jasmine Directory". www.digitaljournal.com. Digital Journal. Retrieved 2 May 2018.
  25. ^ Collins, Jerri. "Online Searches Get Human With Web Directories". Lifewire. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  26. ^ Smarty, Ann (8 September 2014). "High-Quality Directories and How They Add Value to the Web". SEO Chat. Retrieved 1 May 2018. Category pages have lots of content beyond links. They provide 100 / 300-word review for each site (So they write the copy themselves: Neat!)
  27. ^ "25 Best Web Directories for SEO". www.netgeron.com. 15 October 2015. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  28. ^ "Directories that Follow Google Guidelines". www.htpcompany.com. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  29. ^ Jobin, John (2 April 2018). "Getting Listed In Great Web Directories". Egochi. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  30. ^ Anderson, Ken (12 February 2015). "Are Web Directories Relevant for Your Marketing Strategy?". Web Directory Digest. Retrieved 1 May 2018. [...] and Jasmine Directory, to name a few. Far from dying, these directories are gaining ground within the internet landscape, and they are quickly gaining reputation among Internet marketers, as they are high quality directories that can serve as a source of traffic for listed websites.
  31. ^ Banerjee, Souvik (19 April 2018). "The Value of Business Marketing Via Local and Business Directories". RS Web Solutions. Retrieved 1 May 2018. Established in 2009, Jasmine Directory is an online directory that's famous for its human-edited standards and high editorial discretion. Site owners have the option to suggest their sites for review after paying a fee. Nevertheless, inclusion is not promised on the off chance the suggested resources don't agree with the editorial principles.
  32. ^ Saleem, Hasan (21 November 2017). "10 Web Directories You Can Still Count on in 2018 -". The Good Men Project. Retrieved 1 May 2018. Jasmine even labels editor-chosen listings to separate those sites from ones submitted by site owners. It might not sound ideal for you as a site owner, but it actually tells visitors your site was deemed worthy of being listed alongside those top hand-picked resources.
  33. ^ Steiner, Dan (6 November 2017). "12 Awesome Directories For Promoting Your Online Business". Marketing Insider Group. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  34. ^ Gardner, Gail. "The Hidden Mystery Behind Business Guides: A Comprehensive Overview". smallbiztrends.com. Small Business Trends. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  35. ^ Joseph, Joel D. (15 September 2017). "Unintended Consequences of Trade with China". The Progressive POPULIST. 23 (16). According to Robert Gombos, owner of the well-respected Jasmine Directory, a human-edited catalogue that lists businesses topically and regionally [...]
  36. ^ Majar, Navila; Manzoor, Navid (October 2016). "Internet Information Resource Book - Guide to Search Engines, Directories, Online Archives". AIRS. 1 (1). Jasmine Directory [is n.r.] one of the top Google compliant web directories
  37. ^ "The Wee Blue Book 2015-1016, SEO Citation Annual" (PDF). Digital Impact. 8 October 2015. p. 9. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  38. ^ Todor, Dorin (24 April 2018). "Un Bookfest al Timişoarei, pentru minte şi ochi" [Timisoara's Bookfest, for mind and body] (HTML). www.banatulazi.ro (in Romanian). Timișoara, Romania: Banatul Azi. Retrieved 4 May 2018. Talking with Robert Gomboş, currently studying for his MA degree, I found out that he is co-founder of the online "Jasmine Directory", a project designed to list mainly informative and educational resources, as well as local and international businesses. The project was born in 2009 as a result of a collaboration with the Budapest University of Technology and Economics. Between 2013 and 2015, Jasmine Directory was mentioned eight times in the "Top 10 of the most notable online directories", where several directories were evaluated quarterly by industry experts.
  39. ^ James, Gareth (1 December 2017). "Authority Directory List". www.garethjames.net. Retrieved 5 May 2018. The Jasmine Directory is one of the few directories that are compliant with Google guidelines. This means the directory is human edited and not all submitted websites are added. Websites are manually reviewed following strict quality guidelines.

Notes

  1. The translations of the content for ref. #2, ref #3, ref. #4 can befound below in one of my comments to another Wikipedia user who has asked for them. The pictures with the books are located here.
  2. AIRS Association (cited at ref #9 and ref#36) is a non-profit professional body registered in the province of Ontario, Canada. AIRS is a self-regulatory Association formed under the Charter of Associations granted by the Government of Canada. About AIRS
  3. The references listed on this page are in addition to the references listed on the actual entry page
  4. I couldn't find a suitable trans-title for the Turkish reference however I managed to translate the contextual content related to the topic of the article
  5. Not sure about this book, Google Books returns mentions in it, but the pages are restricted to view: ISBN: 9781473944046 (Claire Hewson, Carl Vogel, Dianna Laurent. (2015) Internet Research Methods, Edition 2, Pub. SAGE).
  6. Idem: ISBN: 9781473959309 (Nigel G Fielding, Raymond M Lee, Grant Blank. (2016) The SAGE Handbook of Online Research Methods, Pub. SAGE)
  7. Idem: ISBN: 9781473944046 (Don A. Dillman, Jolene D. Smyth, Leah Melani Christian. (2014) Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, Pub. John Wiley & Sons)
  8. A recorded TV documentary about Art MA, Ph.D graduates where I'm interviewed about my studies and how did I get to be an entrepreneur might help. I haven't included it in the citations because there are enough primary sources.

Best Wishes, Robert G. (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's certainly already far more informative than other Wikipedia articles about web directories, and I see the editor has built out the references, which makes me believe s/he is capable of fixing up the rest. ObadiahKatz (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has been through AfC which lends some credibility. Not helpful that some url links are url-access=limited without being marked as such. I think in 9781473944046 Jasmine is mentioned as part of a list, which may or may not be helpful in terms of context … again page number more helpful. Id be interested in the PacKT reference in Mastering Meteorjs Application Development for Jasmine Directory but I suspect it is at best minimal. Good faith of Robertgombos (talk · contribs) seems apparent. Because of the advertising/promotion nature of some of the references … and because that it somewhat about what the subject of the article is about … and because some may be bloggy … things are a harder call. Would like translations of the foreign books. I cant decide between a weak keep and a weak delete at the moment.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also note that while we have and extensive list of citations I guess we'd probably want pointing at the 'top 5' as those are probably the most important.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to mention another (primary) reference, an article in a regional news website. This is the link). I added the reference to the extended reference list from within the extended content. It's the ref. #37. The translated version is added as quotation. Thanks, Robert G. (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    WP:GNG issue to some extent. So, Reference #1 is browsable on Google Books[25]. Aside from describing DMOZ submission process, on page 113 he lists the most important directories and states, referring to them, that it is useful to check the index status of each directory. On Page 114, after the directories list, he advised his readers to analyze each directory before suggesting their sites to them. That is all from this reference. Reference #2: see the translation in my previous comment (the section with "I've just uploaded scans of pp.73-74"). Reference #3: translation of the second paragraph: Other web directories, such as Best of the Web (1994), Starting Point (1995), JoeAnt (2001), Ezilon (2002), or Jasmine Directory (2009), because of a limited finances, aren't as popular (n.r. as Yahoo'! Directory - deductible from the 3rd paragraph), and this may change how webmaster's perceive these directories. According to a study conducted on a group of advertising agencies/webmasters, 72% of them prefer web directories which use a high editorial discretion. For example, a domestic web directory, Jasmine Directory, was created and launched in the spring of 2009 using European non-reimbursable funds for young graduates (SEAP funding). Until now (2013), the directory managed to absorb/add/get about 4200 resources, of which only 0.3% are domestic. (n.r. Romanian) Out of the 26 domestic websites (found in the Regional subcategory), only two belong to private businesses; the other 24 which are labeled with an EP mark, aka. "Editors Pick", were added manually. (again, this is the author's statement). The author interpreted the study; in his opinion there are two reasons for its results: businesses based in underdeveloped countries and Jasmine Directory's high editorial discretion. Reference #4: The author described various marketing strategies. In the 4th paragraph, he mentioned: Web Directory Marketing - a company can add its website to various online directories to advertise and enhance its image in the online environment. Google has penalized many "spam" directories and advised webmasters to use directories that are objective in reviewing and accepting websites. DMOZ, BOTW, Jasmine Directory, and DirJournal are directories that have one or more editors, use a strict selection, and thus comply with Google's anti-spam rules; therefore, these directories are useful in the SEO process because they offer valid citations (6). Apart from DMOZ, which is free of charge, all of the above mentioned directories charge a review fee. If further translation is needed, let me know. Thanks! Robert G. (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. I have personally edit-battled company representatives trying to rewrite history / redefine reality to benefit their businesses, e.g. on The Smiley Company and Emoticon. I don't see Robert Gombos' involvement in the Jasmine Directory article as being remotely in that category, despite his vested interest (and the fact that businesses can pay for Jasmine listings). I feel he's done the right things by declaring his possible COI, and not editing the article to make it into a marketing pamphlet. I see enough mentions of Jasmine Directory in apparently trustworthy sources for it to be considered notable. The "stamp of approval" from Google is also significant given the penalizing they reportedly do to web directories that they feel are trying to game the system.

    And given the decline in popularity and awareness of web directories since the old Yahoo! days, and the recent efforts of projects like Curlie to try to make them relevant again to the "Why not just Google it?" crowd, I think there's value in documenting a web directory that's well-organized, has listings of reasonable quality, and has received recognition from apparently disinterested third parties. And since "Wikipedia is not a directory", I think the standard for inclusion of articles documenting sites that are web directories needs to correspondingly be a bit on the lenient side. Except in the case of pages created for malicious purposes, I never agree with deletion being in the best interest of Wikipedia. Tag / change / remove questionable content by all means, but deleting pages and their history of edits and discussion merely increases entropy in the universe to no meaningful benefit, IMHO. --Dan Harkless (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged BladesGodric 05:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:MUSTBESOURCES i.e. not a valid argument. Not sure whether you noticed but it wasn't founded until 2009 so it's not as if it was in the '90s when most coverage was still offline. SmartSE (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
And something else... "Undisclosed paid editor"... Who? I personally edited this article at one time and no one gave me any money to do this. I'm not that lucky (sarcasm). But if you accuse somebody of something, come with evidence. Have a nice day. PS: I saw Bilby's statement on the talk page, but where's the evidence, a link, something?... – Alexandru M. (talk · contribs), 27 May 2018, 10:47 (EEST)
  • Final thoughts - As an ending note to this AfD discussion I just want to add:
  1. This article went live after an AfC and NPP process as per COI requirements by two different editors.
  2. The fact that I am the owner of this directory was disclosed on my username page, talk page of the article as per requirements.
  3. During the AfD: ce and cleanup, NPOV improvement by an admin.
  4. During the AfD: more cleanup by another editor
  5. During the AfD: ref improvement by another editor
  6. During the AfD: further improving accuracy, adding mixed reviews, new, more reliable references (some of the below ones) performed by two different editors as a result of two different Edit Requests.
  7. The live version of the article reflets all these improvements/changes and since everything was performed by independent editors/admins (during this 1 month old AfD) as per any/all of Wikipedia's policies I do not think that the page may be considered as being "maintained" by me.
  8. I never pinpointed to other web directories refs because I am a civilised discussion militant, however, if industry specific coverage is an issue than we should AfD all web directory related articles based on their refs.
  9. The topic has a
    WP:RELIABLE
    .
  10. In regard of the single Delete vote (Djm-leighpark's) justified by "I remain on delete... basically to clear the edit the edit summary comments", well, everyone is free to leave whatever edit summary comment considers it suitable as long as follows WP's policies and I don't think any article should be deleted to clear the edit summary. I suppose an admin can delete edit summaries if it's really needed, but I don't think that this is the case.

A. Some of these references were added via the Edit Request procedure. Some of the sources that cross the threshold into significant coverage, even if they don't give Jasmine the primary coverage: Daily News Egypt, The London Economic, TNT Magazine, Pak Wired News, CifNews - popular Chinese news, Small Business Trends, Search Engine Watch, The Good Men Project, Banatul Azi, SB Web Center, Kikolani, Authority Directory List, Blogging Tips, Lifewire, SEO Chat, Creative Minds, Seo Chat 2nd, Daily Blog Tips 2nd, Web Confs, Web Directory Digest - 1st, Web Directory Digest - 2nd, Successful Blog, Digital Journal PR, İbrahim Kavaklı. ADIM ADIM SEO, p. 113-114, 2018.

ISBN 9781118445112
- assesd as passing mention and removed.

B. Some of the full coverage references (please note that these publications/websites are industry specific ones). Some of them were added via the Edit Request procedures: Feb 3013 review by Web Directory Reviews.org, Jun 2013 review by Web Directory Reviews.org, Sep 2013 review by Web Directory Reviews.org, Nov 2013 review by Web Directory Reviews.org, Mar 2014 review by Web Directory Reviews.org, Jun 2014 review by Web Directory Reviews.org, Dec 2014 review by Web Directory Reviews.org, Sep 2014 review by Web Directory Reviews.org, Interview, Quantum Books, Search Engine Colossus, The SEO Company, Addme, AIRS (a self-regulatory Association formed under the Charter of Associations granted by the Government of Canada), Social Implications, Web Directory List.

Finally, I want to thank you all for participating to this AfD. Anyone may check my activity so far, which I think it proves that I'm not on Wikipedia to any web directory related articles, patrolling articles, and creating/improving art related topics being my main activity. Thanks! Robertgombos (talk) 02:01, 28 May 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. Withdrawn after sources found under alternate spellings.

π, ν) 18:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Krithiida

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

Disputing verifiability. I find no reliable sources to this effect, and none at all online before 2012. I have not looked at the cited 1969 dictionary of Greek mythology, but if the tradition were well-known, it would be more commonly cited.

π, ν) 04:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article is badly mistitled, and not very helpful when it comes to sources, but with a little research I was able to locate the subject under "Kritheis" in Pauly-Wissowa. I haven't had a chance to search for alternate orthographies that might be used in English-language sources, but I'm fairly certain that the author of this article was guessing as to the correct one and chose to transliterate an unrecognizable, inflected version. There are several different traditions about her and the birth of Homer, which are too extensive to justify merging this topic with Homer. You can't tell that from the article right now, but I'm going to look for one or two of the sources mentioned in PW (it's a bit labor-intensive, as I don't speak German and have to translate the article to understand it). At any rate, this looks like a case of "move to correct title and add some detail and reliable sources". Once I figure out what the best title would be, of course. It might be "Kritheis", but I want to make sure there's not a more familiar Latin version first. P Aculeius (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Going with "Critheïs" as the primary spelling, with two alternative transliterations from the main Greek spellings. Should I move it, or wait for this discussion to finish? P Aculeius (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Best not to move while AfD is in progress. But then (hoping it gets kept!) we can provide redirects from absolutely every spelling we've found anywhere for it. PamD 17:52, 23 May 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. The only deletion argument besides the nomination is citing BLP for a subject that has been dead since the war. A Traintalk 10:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corny Ostermann

Corny Ostermann (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)

Unable to find any source for anything written about subject other than extremely brief discography references; no notability; no sources provided by article creator at time of creation or after seven months of waiting for something to justify the article's retention Sirlanz 13:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Some refs. can be found on Google Books. Though I'm not sure, if they are sufficient to pass notability. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DNB entry should be enaugh https://portal.dnb.de/opac.htm?method=simpleSearch&cqlMode=true&query=nid%3D1061343367 - The above referenced books have a common theme of someone having worked with Corny Osterman with confers (real world) notability to these musicians due to fact that they have worked with someone more important. Agathoclea (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
see
WP:ANYBIO #3 Agathoclea (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hung verdict
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — 
R+ 04:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete. Unsourced
    WP:BLP which makes no claim of notability. Internet searches don't find anything significant, though admittedly that may not be definitive as he was declared dead 69 years ago. The DNB link above doesn't work for me, but in any case a musician working with a more famous musician doesn't confer notability. Neiltonks (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
You misunderstood. Notability was confered the other way (real world notability - not wiki notability) . The available book material also uses him as a prime example for the music style in the period. DNB lists his death in 1945 which would match with being declared dead later. So definetly no BLP. Agathoclea (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article about Ostermann in a German encyclopedia of jazz musicians by Jürgen Wölfer (now in article). The Discogs entry (now in article) is documenting 7 shellacs under his name; at least 4 titles are re-edited. --Engelbaet (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: The article is unlikely to grow beyond a few sentences unless some researcher discovers and publishes more biographical details. The content, even with additions, is so sparse that merger into
    WP:BASIC notability. AllyD (talk) 10:08, 25 May 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loretta Clawson

Loretta Clawson (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)

Small-town mayor without any indication of independent notability. Fails

WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 04:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:28, 22 May 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. MBisanz talk 00:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kids Suite

Kids Suite (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 a notable streaming video product.

If kept: much of the content is unsourced (and possibly wrong) and the title must change, there are many other things called "Kids Suite".

π, ν) 03:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Can you clarify what other notable products are called Kids Suite, and what you think is wrong? Bell TV has a lot of customers and this is included in all the packages, it's notable. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless I'm really missing something here, I don't think there are any inclusion standards for "video on demand collections". Therefore this would need to pass the GNG, and there's absolutely no suggestion that the subject does — there isn't even a claim to notability in the article. Has this particular collection of Peppa Pig streaming content had some significant societal impact that other bundles of Peppa videos have not? The existing references simply assert that this service exists. A Traintalk 23:04, 25 May 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. A Traintalk 10:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toy Collector Hall of Fame

Toy Collector Hall of Fame (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 a notable event or organization. Only references to its own website are present, and no coverage found. Different from the National Toy Hall of Fame.

π, ν) 03:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

First, I specifically said it is different from that Hall of Fame, which is what the search results I found were about. Second, if significant coverage isn't going to happen for three months, the article can be moved to draft space (or your userspace), and restored after that coverage happens; note
π, ν) 03:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Fair point re the COI (I thought I kept the text fact based, basically a list of inductee. Joschik (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand where the "promote" and "honest" aspects are coming in, I think the text is factual Joschik (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are four references, two of which are primary, the other two of which is trivial (just a slight mention in the last sentence of a long article, and the wrestling one only two sentences long.) The text may be factual but the reliance on primary sources shows this fails
WP:GNG, and a broader search on the topic doesn't bring up enough secondary sources to show notability. The reliance on the primary sources also means there appears to be some promotional elements. It's not necessarily malicious, but the standards are not met. SportingFlyer talk 01:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 13:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. A Traintalk 10:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Salyer

Stephen Salyer (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)

Insufficient coverage to establish general notability. The coverage that I can find appears to be incidental, or covering the Salzburg Global Seminar. References and sources lacking overall. It does appear that the article may have been created by someone with a close relationship with the subject. Shritwod (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Non-trivial biographical article in NYT. [39] Cited for quotes in non-trivial number of NYT articles. [40] [41] and so on. [42] mentioned in book on Islamic Law, crediting Salyer and SGS. Testified before Congress (multiple sources). in short, sufficiently notable. Collect (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 13:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. A Traintalk 10:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hisham al-Hashimi

Hisham al-Hashimi (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)

No indication of

notability. The sourcing looks impressive but usually is just passing mentions where al-Hashimi comments on some topic, without significant coverage of al-Hashimi himself. Significant parts of the "bio" section aren't confirmed by the cited sources. Huon (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From what is around online in English, he clearly has some significance, although I don't think he would quite edge over GNG based on what I've seen alone, for reasons mentioned above. However, most of the references are in Arabic, and indeed I would expect there to be more sources about him in that language. He also has a page on the Arabic Wikipedia, which is possibly an indication of notability based on such sources. Unless we can find an Arabic speaker who can confirm all the Arabic sources are not significant enough to establish notability, I would err towards a keep to be honest.

BubbleEngineer (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz Humbug! 09:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added many sources 185.88.24.150 (talk) 19:36, 21 May 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. Clearly no great urgency on the part of the community to delete this article. 104.163.137.171 has improved it significantly since nomination, anyway, so this might have been a

WP:HEY even if anyone had chimed in. A Traintalk 10:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Shynola

Shynola (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)

No apparent notability, no sources, reads like a CV. Single exhibition in 1996 Heliotom (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is factual-- they seem to have done everything claimed. I found and added nine sources quite quickly, which means there are many more out there. In reference to the "single exhibition" mentioned by the nom, Shynola produced mainly video works for music and advertising, which, given the calibre of the musicians they worked for, had to have been seen by many millions. 104.163.137.171 (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:11, 21 May 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 for now. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IBM New York Scientific Center

IBM New York Scientific Center (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)

Astonishingly non-notable. This has been a stub for almost fourteen years! In that time, nobody has apparently found anything to say about it. My own searching, surprisingly, came up with very little. A bunch of mentions here and there, a few wiki-mirrors, but nothing substantial on which to base

WP:NCORP or any other notability standard I'm aware of. I'm actually hoping people will find enough sources that I can withdraw this nomination, since it seems like the kind of thing that should be notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdrawing my nomination per
Cowdung Soup, but the clock is ticking. I've got a calendar event for July 14th to renominate this. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in part due to a delete !vote that remains present in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 13:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 13:14, 22 May 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 07:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John McCain IV

John McCain IV (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)

Notability concerns for this son of a political figure. The article is heavily focused on trivial/gossip details such as deleted tweets and celebrity dating.

π, ν) 00:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:07, 21 May 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 07:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erasure (logic)

Erasure (logic) (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)

Can't find sources supporting the definition of "erasure property" given, and it is unclear to me what "the propositions" is intended to mean here. The talk page has an unanswered request for clarification dating from 2007. Paradoctor (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 21 May 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 07:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark NeJame

Mark NeJame (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 lawyer.

WP:MILL apply. reddogsix (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:27, 21 May 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 07:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheri Miller

Sheri Miller (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 notable per

WP:NMUSIC, coverage does not extend above local coverage. There is no coverage in reliable sources. Article was created by an SPA. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:39, 22 May 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_May_21&oldid=1142615600"