Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 27

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 26 October 28 October >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus that additional sourcing was available and has been added

(non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Honos

Honos (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)

May not pass GNG since it has no sources. Also there are little to no hits on Google on the topic

ping me) 23:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 23:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 23:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 23:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

İsmail Çipe

İsmail Çipe (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)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails

WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Concordia University#Libraries, archives, and galleries. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery X

Gallery X (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)

GNG fail. Unsourced since 2008; I do not see enough RS out there to sustain notability.

talk) 23:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Here's a picture of the space. I did not realize that it is part of the cafe, which is an old trick by art students to get their CV's started: it does not sound like a cafe, but rather a gallery. Additionally, Cafe X seems to have closed.
talk) 00:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A student gallery, where none of the artists who have exhibited there have received sufficient critical attention to warrant an Wikipedia article about them. I would take that as an indication of notability: a gallery showing notable artists. That's not the case here, and there is nothing that would meet the GNG. Vexations (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Concordia University#Faculty of Fine Arts. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Concordia_University#Libraries,_archives,_and_galleries would be better. Vexations (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Café X is apparently gone (and with it the gallery) so if there's a redirect it would be for historical purposes.
talk) 19:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

List of invited speakers at cryptology conferences

List of invited speakers at cryptology conferences (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 topic may lack notability per the

CRYPTO). Dividing up the list like this would still provide this information, but without the notability concerns. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a bit too indiscriminate to be useful as a resource for people looking for potentially notable cryptographers to create new articles about. XOR'easter (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inappropriate use of lists (
    WP:NOTDIRECTORY), unsourced and fairly trivial. Has anyone checked for 'List of caterers at cryptography conferences'? Nick Moyes (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Wiki is not a directory FOARP (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
    b} 12:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Desheret

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean "non-functioning"? The website is still up and seems to function just fine. SpinningSpark 20:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • there’s very little content on it and it looks to me like it’s not being updated. Mccapra (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
(talk) (contribs) 21:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Pull back (disambiguation)

Pull back (disambiguation) (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)

Orphaned redundant disambiguation page. All math uses are mentioned in the

talk) 15:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The main page performs the same navigational function as this page. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are several articles with wikilinks under this disambiguation, so the disambiguation is serving a purpose. Vorbee (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've moved the partial matches to See also, leaving just the mathematical entries (which are already listed in the main page). If this page is kept, rename Pullback (disambiguation) since there are no "pull back"s. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a bog standard disambiguation page. Szzuk (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 19:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Pullback, overwriting the article there now. It's inappropriate to have a broad-concept article there, as it's not a broad concept, but several concepts with the same name, none of which are particularly primary, so a dab page at "Pullback" is appropriate. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Pullback was formerly the disambiguation page but it appears ip editors changed it into an article that describes unrelated mathematical concepts. We need to delete this and return pullback to its proper usage. Szzuk (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The mathematical concepts probably do have some inherent value so could possibly merge elsewhere but I don't think such a broad term as pullback should be used for this niche so I was essentially agreeing with Deacon Vorbis, anyway I will see what others think. Szzuk (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@
Nowak Kowalski, how about - 1) move Pullback to Pullback (mathematics), 2) revert Pullback to the dab page for the generic term 3) delete Pull back (disambiguation). Szzuk (talk) 07:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mostly split between K/D votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
(talk) (contribs) 21:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

List of Sons of Utah Pioneers historic monuments

List of Sons of Utah Pioneers historic monuments (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)

List of unclear utility, whose title does not actually correspond to its contents: the title claims that it's a list of monuments, but what's actually in the list is not the names of monuments but simply a tally of the number of monuments in each state that has some. And the only source provided here is the organization's own

self-published website about itself, which doesn't constitute strong evidence that this system is notable enough for us to need this list at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Okay, I didn't know about that article — I came across this one because it was misfiled in an overly general category that it didn't really belong in, but that other one wasn't filed alongside it. Since that page actually has at least some names of monuments in it, the potential deletion rationale in that case isn't entirely the same as it is here — it's still parked on the same primary source rather than citing reliable source coverage, but since part of the rationale for deleting this one is vitiated by that page it would need to be renominated for a new discussion rather than simply being bundled here. So I'm going to withdraw this and redirect it to there, without prejudice against a renomination of the target page if somebody else feels more strongly about that than I do. Bearcat (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Revolution (game show)

Revolution (game show) (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)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very promotional article for a show that never was. Much of the information is from an edit with diff summary Addition of the game's concept along with other information that I obtained when I went to watch the pilot episode be recorded in-person. I also added a photo that I had taken of the studio.
    π, ν) 16:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong Delete Non notable game show that fails
    Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - a one off show which was not really notable. Dunarc (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy redirect to

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 20:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Carmyle Primary School

AfDs for this article:
Carmyle 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)

Non-notable primary school. Does not meet

WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 18:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. While there were some weak keep arguments, there were some good ones too.

(non-admin closure) —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Primetime Adventures

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since no fresh source material has come to light since the article was posted.TH1980 (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - multiple reviews meet NBOOK, and WP:N is also met by multiple Indie RPG awards and multiple citations of its influence in Designers & Dragons, Volume 4. The current state of the reference is irrelevant; AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Spurious nom. Newimpartial (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide evidence of "multiple reviews" in RS per our standard requirement that sources must be demonstrated, not just asserted? Also, I am unable to find an entry for this in "Designers & Dragons, Volume 4" - can you please provide a page number for verification? Chetsford (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Designers references are on pages 149, 179, 183, 254, and 290. Really, the indecx could be your friend. Newimpartial (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm not seeing it but - in any case - can you please provide evidence of "multiple reviews" in RS? Or was it just that one? Chetsford (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One of the professional and Reliably Sourced reviews is that by MJ Harnish at boardgamegeek. There are of ourselves others, just as when you open up your dead tree edition of Designers & Dragons, Volume 4, there is an index at the back. Except for the blind, there isn't anything you "couldn't see". Newimpartial (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from my inherent concerns that "boardgamegeek.com" meets the RS standards, the link you provided isn't a link to a review, nor does it mention the "Primetime Adventures" game, it's a link to "User Profile for MJ Harnish". With all due respect, you do - in fact - have to provide evidence that coverage exists, not just claim it exists. It can become exhausting for all involved to have to pry this information out of you. I don't mean to be annoying in continuing to remind you of the need to demonstrate sources, but since ferret also told you in the Erdor AfD "you didn't provide sources when asked so NEXIST wasn't met" I sense that there is a reasonable need to underscore this point. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chetsford, please look at the link after "at", which is the review; the link before "at" gives the credentials of the author of the review.
And I would remind you that in this AfD and its parallel for The Mountain Witch, one of us is providing sources while the other seems unable or unwilling to read them. I'll let the closer here figure out which contribution is decisive. Newimpartial (talk)
Chetsford, please look at the link after "at", which is the review - Here's a screenshot [2] of the link [3] "after at" [4]. Anyway, it's become rather clear at this point this is another exercise in obfuscation and, I'm afraid, I don't have time this week to treat it so I'll leave this AfD to you. Best of luck. Chetsford (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Link fixed above; it is [5]. I trust you will find it easier to read than Designers & Dragons Volume 4, which in spite of everything you have written about it, you do not seem even to have opened. Newimpartial (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a thread on a message forum. Forum threads, chat room logs, messages in bottles, etc. are not RS. Are there any RS for this product? Chetsford (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After opening the link, Chetsford, the best practice is actually to read the content. Here it is a self-published review by published expert MU Harnish. Per
WP:SOURCES
, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" which is precisely the case here, as demonstrated above.
Also,please don't be disingenuous. Designers & Dragons is a reliable source on this game, per your own RSN investigation on the subject, and the multiple citations of the game for its influence, as I noted above, and which you have seemngly failed to read, alleviate any concerns about "trivial mentions".
NBOOK is met, even without the Indie awards. Why not withdraw the nomination? Newimpartial (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, message boards are not RS. Per
WP:SOURCES the expertise of an expert must, itself, be established through RS declaring that person an expert. Merely asserting someone is an expert does not establish their expertise. And, as has been repeatedly stated by others, NBOOK does not apply to instruction or rules manuals. Chetsford (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
No, Chetsford. For self-published sources, the venue is not what matters (and boardgamegeek is a respected venue). What matters in this case is the credentials of the reviewer - is it written by a recognized professional in the field. Which MJ Harnish is, which is why I posted his Wired CV above. Do try to keep up.
And no, Chetsford, no-one except yourself has yet stated that Hillfolk or Primetime Adventures are "instruction manuals" to which NBOOK does not apply. There are literally hundreds of AfDs resolved along contrary lines. Before presuming that your own word is dogma, may I suggest that you try an RfC? (Though given how you are consistently ignoring the clear consensus of your own RSN query on Designers & Dragons, I suppose it is too much to hope that you would actually listen to the community).
I would suggest that you actually read a book yourself before engaging in deletion domination, but that is clearly too much to ask for.Newimpartial (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Do try to keep up.", "I would suggest that you actually read a book yourself" - You have been previously asked by others to not use AfDs as a platform to launch into personal attacks against the intelligence of editors and have repeatedly pledged to stop doing so. I'd kindly ask you continue the good work you've demonstrated recently in calibrating your responses. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not doubt either your "intelligence" or your literacy, Chetsford. I do doubt your willingness to read either the subjects of the RPG articles or our sources about them, which is one of the factors that discourages me from responding generously to your requests for sources. But by all means, let us be civil about it, q.v. "instruction manuals", "messages in bottles", "Are there any RS for this product?" after asking for and receiving page references in Designers & Dragons, etc., not to mention your quite unCIVIL "exercise in obfuscation" comment. Let us indeed be CIVIL. 20:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
That's better. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Newimpartial in spirit and especially if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to

List of role-playing games. BOZ (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Per our guidelines, notability is established by significant coverage. Mere proof that something exists is not proof of that thing's notability. Chetsford (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is established when a academic publisher provides "significant coverage".
Capitals00 (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Um, dude, there is no requirement for
WP:ACADEMIC sourcing. Multiple, reliable sources are sufficient. And, note to Chetsford, significant coverage from multiple sources has been demonstrated here. Newimpartial (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
There is no such requirement but I was saying that if an academic publisher has provided enough coverage then the subject is obviously notable in addition to multiple other reliable sources. To treat it as "mere proof that something exists" is underestimation like Chetsford was doing.
Capitals00 (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Wallock

Daniel Wallock (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:BIO. No coverage. scope_creep (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The best source is the LA Times story about a law suit brought by Wallock's parents against an insurance company that refused to pay for medical care he needed as an infant. He was born with heart defects, but this does not make him a notable person. His claim to notability is summarised itn citation #5 "20-Year-Old Open-Heart Surgery Survivor Found His Passion In Social Media Marketing, an interview by one of the many bloggers hosted by Forbes. Article Sourced almost exclusively to blog posts hosted by Forbes. Plus a blog post hosted by HuffPost. Article also cites a USA Today article which is a dead link; but I can't find the article and cannot, therefore, tell whether it is a reported piece. Fails
    WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete As E.M.Gregory says, sources seem to be limited to promotional material, and there's not enough to be able to write a neutral article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. In terms of actually justified !votes there is a clear consensus that the improved article (dour or not) is sufficiently sourced to pass notability

(non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Hippo eats dwarf

Hippo eats dwarf (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)

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

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

Really? Can you provide a URL to the discussion, because there's no links on the article's talk page to previous deletion discussions. Openlydialectic (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was no AfD as far as I can see. It was nominated in 2009 for speedy deletion as a G3 (hoax) which was declined (an article about a hoax is not itself a hoax). It was also nominated in 2010 under A7 which is an equally inappropriate criterion. SpinningSpark 22:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Snopes source in the article gives a good account of the history (and much of it is currently missing from the article). Together with the fact that this has reappeared in "proper" newspapers in at least three bursts at different times and is the title of Boese's book, who also gives an account of its history, is enough to get it past GNG for me. SpinningSpark 16:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Hippos only eat dwarf vegetables SpinningSpark 16:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As well as split opinions, editors on either side (if Kylelovesyou is a de facto !vote) aren't sufficiently justifying their !votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Smith (American football coach)

Chuck Smith (American football coach) (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)

Altho a very accomplished high school coach, he doesn't meet

WP:SNG John from Idegon (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. A third relist usually isn't acceptable, and this is an already an old discussion. If anyone would like me to reverse the close, I will, but (including nomination), keep-delete votes are split. No consensus appears to be the best option.

(talk) (contribs) 00:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Codeforces

AfDs for this article:
Codeforces (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)

Some new references, but still fails

WP:GNG. wumbolo ^^^ 16:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As you can see at
    XfD
    .
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Along with the above rational, I would add that Google News shows enough sources that confirms the software to be notable. Rzvas (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is a lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Most of the sources found are primary.
    hundreds 15:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

JMC Academy

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt nothing has changed since the last time it was delete any recreation should be reviewed via appropriate discussion. Gnangarra 10:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep accretted post secondary degree granting is a bright line for notability. All such institutions deserve an article. It is part of the public good. A Wikipedia page is one way for employers to check if a school listed on a resume is real or diploma mill. If we suspend the bright line we get into arguing case by case if this or that school is "important" enough for a page. We even accept pages on schools that are government approved but not operating yet so this nomination is out of order and against long standing practiceLegacypac (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed the definition of self-accrediting, I suspect that the argument that this was a critical marker of legitimacy for Australian universities (as asserted in the previous AfD) may have been incorrect, although I may be misinterpreting this new text. If it is indeed the case that real, legitimate tertiary educational institutions in Australia are generally not self-accrediting, then I agree with the argument above and no longer am in favor of deletion. I'd appreciate it if someone with more expertise could confirm what the meaning (and importance) of "self-accrediting" is in Australia. signed, Rosguill talk 22:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: Information on self-accreditation can be found here. It has to be granted by the Australian Government and when granted, as here, it shows a high level of trust in the institution by the Government education department. Just Chilling (talk)
  • Delete now as it was deleted then. We are, as a community, moving away from the inherent notability standard of schools. And that's a good thing. It's what makes us an encyclopedia. No significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject has been presented. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a recognised degree-awarding tertiary education institution.The fact that it self-accrediting shows that it has passed the necessary rigorous examination by the Australian education department Kudos to the nominator for finding an in-depth source and their open-minded approach. There is another decent source, here. Looking across all the sources available,
    WP:ORG is clearly met. Further, reading the sources, this Academy plays an important role in creative industries education in this country. Finally, its opinions are quoted (and hence valued) in the media, for example, here by the HuffPost. Of course, it is not a good article that needs much editing and the removal of puffery but AFD is not cleanup and the need for cleanup is not a ground for deletion. Just Chilling (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It's not self-accrediting though. The confusion regarding that claim was as to what self-accreditation means (and whether it's important), but the sources for the article unambiguously state that the subject is not a self-accrediting school. signed, Rosguill talk 19:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With 1800 students and three campuses it's clearly notable. The writing is promotional but that's reason to edit not delete. Ifnord (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - it's not an orphan, and does have three campuses. I fixed the logo and hatnoted for reference improvements. Coverage is virtually non-existent, but there are at least two paywalled passing mentions in the Australian press [[8]] (not the first one though - that's a sponsored ad). TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - the History section is all awards, that needs to be more factual about their growth. If not, then it doesn't belong.--JAMillerKC (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good rationales above by Ifnord, and Just Chilling. --1l2l3k (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not the strongest of keeps but I think a definite one. There are multiple official government references. There are multiple referrals / recommendations by industry potential employer type organisations. Has a recognised over 30 years establishment with multiple campuses. There is sufficient
    WP:NEXIST to get it over the GNG line. Aoziwe (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Ravi Prakash (CEO, RPT Inc.)

Ravi Prakash (CEO, RPT Inc.) (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)

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

  • Delete This should be speedy deleted. FitIndia Talk 14:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely non-notable. The first source (Times of India) doesn't work, and the others are practically worthless. --Kbabej (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw talk 01:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Garry

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

Subject fails

reliable sources. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article has no relaible sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there are no reliable sources. IMDB is not a valid source, and it is the only one on the article. --Kbabej (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No major roles, just minor voice roles. Not everyone working as an actor is notable. --Michig (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Makati Diamond Residences

Makati Diamond Residences (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)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing notable about this building. Ajf773 (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment it is reported to be 106.83 m (350.49 ft) tall. I have held elsewhere that buildings >= 100 m should be deemed notable, worldwide. As an alternative to deletion, at worst should this redirect to a row for it in
    List of tallest buildings in the Philippines? --Doncram (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Doncram, that list cuts off at #46, a spot shared by 7 buildings, which are 150m tall. This building doesn't make the cut for an entry on that list. Cabayi (talk) 09:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on current sourcing to a directory and a primary source. Height is not inherently notable, but you would expect to see secondary sources for tall buildings. If this is one of them I haven't seen it yet. SportingFlyer talk 01:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete concur with nom. 28 story building,
    WP:MILL. MB 04:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to Suwon Samsung Bluewings. Jac16888 Talk 11:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Suwon Samsung Bluewings season

2018 Suwon Samsung Bluewings season (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 content displayed with a large hide content and the original version is mainly written by korean language. Hhkohh (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Daniel Donkor

Daniel Donkor (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)

Footballer who fails GNG and

WP:NFOOTY. BlameRuiner (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Helper SHIBETA

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

  • Delete this is a self published manga with no independent sources. I declined the Draft and have also clearly advised the author about the issues surrounding this article and its lack of suitability for Wikipedia. Fails
    WP:GNG
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to be a self-published manga. No sign of reliable third-party coverage. Pichpich (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as subject does not have significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, so it does not meet
    talk) 02:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus that, once stage performances are included, there is sufficient sourcing to demonstrate notability

(non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Di Botcher

Di Botcher (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)

Doesn't meet

WP:GNG. Unref blp. Boleyn (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. She has had a long career with roles in many significant shows and films and is now playing a relatively significant role in one of Britain's longest-running and best-known drama series. I think she just about makes it over the line. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A quick search shows that she is mentioned positively by name in reviews in national UK newspapers of several plays and musicals she appeared in. In fact, her stage appearances are not even mentioned in this article! RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added a table of some of her stage performances, with references - 21 roles in plays and musicals over 30 years, including in the West End of London. I will add more quotes from reviews. I think the main reason the subject of this article did not appear notable is that the information was (likely) copied from IMDB, and hence missed a large part of her career. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Big in Wales. Satisfies
    WP:GNG: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. --Michig (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 07:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mamoudou Gassama

AfDs for this article:
Mamoudou Gassama (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)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, CAPTAIN RAJU. NAH 22:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]
You can count me as "weak keep" if it turns out to be kept in French.
talk) 08:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The french AfD finishes on November 3.

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

The result was keep. Essentially, the additional sources found by Michig were not challenged. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Paba

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

An advertorially-toned page on a nn individual. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions and / or

WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Bkleinberg currently indef-blocked for abusing multiple accounts; likely UPE based on behavioural evidence. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Whether or nor she is an expert isn't really the issue here, it has no bearing on satisfying
WP:GNG. --Michig (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
What a stupid joke. This isn't beauty pageant. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just stating 'non-notable X' as a deletion argument in every AfD isn't likely to carry much weight with closing administrators. --Michig (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Some decent coverage in multiple sources, makes this at least borderline for GNG, e.g. [19], [20], [21]. --Michig (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Michig, and quite easily found the same sources and a few others - note that El Diario NY is a New York based Spanish-language news sources, so not local to her home country or place of business. This is another profile of her, focusing on her work with cancer patients: [22], in an English-language website about Latino entertainment and lifestyle. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above sources which indicate that
    WP:GNG is met. Assuming good faith that these sources are in RS and a prima facie look seems to support that. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

(non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 12:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Bitch Lasagna

Bitch Lasagna (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 doesn't seem to be notable. I don't see substantial news coverage, and it doesn't seem to have charted.—{{u|

T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 04:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 12:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Agreed, none of these 3 sources would help towards meeting the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You were probably better off with your first choice of “Redirect”. The article is extremely short and largely unsourced. There’s nothing in particular worth merging over... Sergecross73 msg me 16:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True, I'll go back to my first choice of Redirect. – Vistadan 16:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Viable search term (and...unlikely to ever refer to anything else) but not enough (or any found as of writing this) third party reliable sources that discuss it in significant detail. Failure of the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    talk) 21:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep or Merge with
    talk) 19:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The song is already mentioned under
talk) 23:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@Wumbolo: Good idea! That's great thinking there, as coming up with a solution like that shows great initiative, as it is much better than just a regular redirect! Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don’t. That would likely be deleted or redirected too, and if you’d read the discussion, you’d we don’t need a redirect target, we already have consensus for one that already exists. Sergecross73 msg me 22:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That won't be redirected per WP:XY, and is actually a very lengthy event, with coverage from several months ago and it's every day in the news at the moment.wumbolo ^^^ 08:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • XY will only prevent redirection, not deletion. It will just end up being deleted. There’s very little precedent for “grudge” articles like you’re proposing. Just write it as a subsection at either of their existing articles if there really is reliable sourcing out there. The lack of coverage on this song makes me rather doubtful though. Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They’re all just saying the same thing: Pewdiepie is most popular, but T-series is on track to beat him. That’s enough to source a sentence or two, not enough to warrant the construction of another entire article. Please take this discussion to a Wikiproject or something, it’s getting in the way of the discussion. There’s already a viable redirect target, so the outcome of this AFD is not dependent on the existence of this I’ll-conceived article. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • BabbaQ - How can you say that? Those are the same sources presented and discounted above. What makes these sources reliable sources? How can you possibly suggest that your third source, an article published in 2014 - 4 years prior to the subjects existence, somehow helps prove notability here? Really, really disappointing to see from an experienced editor as yourself. Sergecross73 msg me 01:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. Nowhere near enough coverage to justify a separate article. --Michig (talk) 09:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to PewDiePie#Discography per above, which it originally was a part of is what I had originally said, but also check out Wumbolo's idea above as well. After reading about invalid reasoning listed below, I have now changed my mind. Only when the article can be proven to be expanded and better sourced, then it can become its own article, but only then. Note the person who claimed this is a Wikipedia administrator and an authority on this matter. Either way I vote for a redirect. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkdw talk 01:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lengthy article about an esoteric non-profit organisation and a dumping ground of every non-notable scrap of information about it. The citations recently added are not about eCAADe. I can't find significant independent reliable coverage about the organisation online. Fails

WP:NONPROFIT and could probably be safely described as a thinly disguised advertisement. Time for it to go. Sionk (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is very niche as indicated by the name, the few refs are primary, trivial or 404. Their website states they are a charity and they offer a talking place, an annual conference and journal. No results on news, google offering academia only. Szzuk (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing found that would indicate sufficient significance for inclusion. --Michig (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do modify this article. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jiahui Chen

Jiahui Chen (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)

Contested PROD, Non-notable tennis player who fails

WP:GNG. Iffy★Chat -- 13:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with nom. Only lower level ITF titles but that is no where near notability guidelines. No sources found. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enfocus

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

This article is about a small non-notable company. A search for references turns up nothing significant in terms of independent reliable sources - routine coverage only. Does not meet

WP:CORPDEPTH. The article is entirely the product of single-purpose accounts, several of which have an obvious username connection to the company such as Enfocusmarketing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), EnfocusMKT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Enfocus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This article is nothing more than blatant self-promotion. Deli nk (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to
    evidence of specific notability for the company. There is brief coverage at the article on the immediate parent company, so a redirect could be appropriate. AllyD (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was delete.

This discussion became quite sidetracked to debate the legitimacy of the work conducted by the subject. Wikipedia relies on significant coverage from reliable independent sources. Concerns over whether the individual had been the focus of sources were not a adequately addressed and it was not reasonably demonstrated that the individual clearly meets

WP:GNG. Mkdw talk 01:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Frederick Klenner

Frederick Klenner (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 at

WP:FRINGE. The Bledsoe book seems to be the only reliable source that covers Klenner, and the sourcing in this article is actually worse than the deleted one. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is entirely written in an unencyclopedic style, referencing is far too reliant on a single source of questionable reliability.
    WP:JUNK applies.GirthSummit (blether) 10:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep, adequately sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does seem to overly rely on one dubious source and a lot of primary sources. I also see a degree of overcite here as well. I suggest nuking and starting from scratch, leaving out all puffery and questionable sources.Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have rarely seen so many references to an individual source that didn't have the article subject as it's primary focus. Seriously, over thirty references to
    WP:NFRINGE: "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers." So, not orthomolecular journals, not Klenner's own publications, not The Healing Factor: Vitamin C Against Disease, not self-published blogs, and not primary research for medical claims. --tronvillain (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per Tronvillain, or nuke and redirect to
    talk) 14:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Reply by author, danslation

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

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

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

Our sage editor — once again demonstrating his equanimity and devotion to the truth — claims that I “wrote this (and virtually nothing else)” on Wikipedia. Wrong again. I am the main author of the articles on

José de Gálvez and Pedro Fages, and the exclusive author of the article on Miguel Costansó. I’ve contributed to several other Wikipedia articles — for example, writing a major portion of the section on the expulsion of Jesuit priests from Spain and Mexico in 1767
. Danslation (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We use third party sources, not a mans own claims to his works efficacy (for example).Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Current article slavishly and uncritically repeats claims that he cured people. TNT needed. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 17:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, subject is not notable, however skilfully blown up with the appearance of references. Essentially we have here a single source and an attempt to portray the subject as significant with much trivial and unencyclopedic detail. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Author’s reply to objections to primary sources

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

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

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

Fallacious rubbish. His claims have already been tested and found to be false. In any case that is irrelevant to Wikipedia's notability standards (though your comments do speak to your own biases). Guy (Help!) 07:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, really: Klenner’s “claims have already been tested and found to be false”? Where? When? How? Can you cite a single scientific experiment that used Klenner’s dosing of sodium ascorbate and refuted his clinical findings? If so, why haven’t you added it to the Klenner article?
Regarding the question of bias, I appreciate your wry sense of humor: Evidently you, who launched this suppression campaign by denouncing Klenner — with no substantiation — as a “figure in the world of orthomolecular quackery,” have no biases, and no need to soil your hands with the facts of the real world. Nor any need to retract false and absurd claims that “the sourcing in this article is actually worse than the deleted one” or that it relies on Townsend Letter. Nor any need to apologize to the author for your slanderous assertion that he “wrote this (and virtually nothing else)" on Wikipedia. Danslation (talk) 10:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then lets use those reports by independent Medical doctors that support his findings. His work is not independent of him, it is not third party. As such it cannot be used for factual statements about his work, nor tare they a good way to demonstrate notability.Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While Klenner’s work is indeed not independent of him, it enables independent verification or refutation: In his clinical reports, Klenner laid bare his therapeutic methods, so that any other medical doctor or researcher can test them. Danslation (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, it's not a productive use of research time to painstakingly refute every piece of pseudoscience and every fringe theory someone comes up with. We also already have articles on his theories, and they should be primarily covered at those articles – they're already reasonably detailed, and you can always add to them, so this is hardly suppression.
WP:UNDUE weight to negative aspects of his personal life, the details of which are really not that notable, does not justify doing the same in the opposite direction to his theories. The article should do neither. If you really do want to work on it, I'd suggest keeping the article short and to the point, perhaps like Samuel Hahnemann. There is no need to have comprehensive coverage of the field he founded on the biographical page, and it would likely be better received if improvements were made at the topic article instead, with a WP:Summary style section linking to the main article.
Honestly, I understand if you're really passionate about this stuff, but Wikipedia isn't for "promoting free scientific inquiry", it's for collating, summarising and simplifying what's written in reliable sources. Having those ideals are great and all, but they aren't suitable for a genral encyclopedia: You're better off starting your own blog, YouTube channel, or petitioning your elected representative for research into those areas. Wikipedia is a hammer, and not everything is a nail. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Far from fringe theory, this article covers over 25 years of clinical practice by a free-thinking medical doctor.Danslation (talk) 10:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
learn to indent your posts, and stop shouting. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 11:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Read
wp:fringe might help as well.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Roxy's reply makes less sense after my edit, but that was an unreadable mess. See
WP:THREAD. --tronvillain (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
No worries. I think the point has been well made. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 16:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but even if it weren't a fringe theory (which it is, even if a couple of people have devoted their careers to it) it's still more appropriately covered at the main article. Most of the content in the current article is irrelevant to his notability as a person, and will be deleted. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you Wikipedia sages had been around in the 1650s, you would have deleted any biography of
steady state model
.
Note that Guy, who launched the campaign to suppress knowledge of the life and medical career of Frederick Klenner, lapsed into resounding silence when I called his bluff that Klenner’s “claims have already been tested and found to be false” — challenging him to cite a single experiment that used Klenner’s vitamin C dosing and refuted his clinical findings. For a smug religious fraternity, real-world facts have no use or value.
Danslation (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possibly, as that is what policy would dictate, but that is so as to ensure that we do not give N-rays the same status as X-rays or piltdown man the same credibility as Australopithecus. The simple fact is most of us (are you?) are not qualified medical researchers, so we rely on those who are. And we rely on third parties precisely because we do not want to repeat the mistakes of accepting that Lamarckism is a valid scientific theory.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice Galileo gambit you have there, but it does nothing to establish notability here. If, in some unlikely event, Klenner somehow becomes a real Galileo, then he'll certainly merit an article. --tronvillain (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited User:Slatersteven's comment immediately above, for meaning. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 13:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You were correct that is what I had intended to say, but it might have been best practice to just ask (rather then edit).Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On an article that attracts such attention from true believers, perhaps you should proof read before making such edits. Roxy, in the middle. wooF 16:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkdw talk 01:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin L. Barney

Kevin L. Barney (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 subject that fails

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see the coverage needed to meet the GNG and I don't see evidence he meets
    WP:NAUTHOR (340 blogs for By Common Consent doesn't do it).Sandals1 (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There isn't even a viable claim of notability here. --Michig (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, insufficient claim to notability, promo. Szzuk (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkdw talk 01:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Webcasting Association

International Webcasting Association (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 working references. Doesnt seem to exist any more. Was it notable? Rathfelder (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, maybe even speedy as a mix of copyvio and promo. Page started off as a straight copy paste from their then website, copyright 2003 [29]. Only significant additions since then have been pure PR straight from the org, eg."goal is to keep our members" [30] (wouldn't be surprised if it was also copyvio). Even if they are notable the entire history should be removed so best to delete and allow someone independent to start again if they are notable (far from convinced). duffbeerforme (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Paul Soubry

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sourcing is sufficient (based off access to the GDPR-blocked ones but not the registration-blocked ones), and the other issues have been reduced sufficiently to be insufficient grounds. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Badr el Battahi

Badr el Battahi (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 individual, fails

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Wellington to Nantwich Railway

Wellington to Nantwich Railway (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)

Contested

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    JoshuaIsTheFalco deprodded this with the edit summary: "I request this page remain because it helps to cover a line which was at first two separate railways but then merged into one and remained that way till closure. Instead of two separate articles, This will help to improve both the knowledge of the former railway, it has already the information of both railways and is more easier to read as it is all in one article and not two separate ones." Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment iff this is deleted (and I am at present undecided on the merits of this) then it should be replaced with a disambiguation page linking to the other articles as the name is well used in sources. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, someone needs to dig around to see what these lines were called back in the day they were open. I suspect this is a synthesis of two separate lines, but can't tell for sure. Szzuk (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neutral. The situation seems to be that these two railways were created separately around the 1860s, and were notionally if not practically separate until the 1890s before formally joining. I think this is a delete based upon the references in this new article all mentioning the separate lines, indicating it is a content fork, it is well intentioned but not needed. I don't think we can create a disambiguation page because they require articles with the same name which these don't have. A better option would be a delete and redirect to either line with a hatnote on the other. \Szzuk (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm switching to neutral, it is a marginal call so i'm erring on the do nothing side. Szzuk (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, the line was indeed formed from two independent railways which both already have articles, but after the GWR took over it was treated as a single route under that name, as explained in the book Shropshire Railways. Quite properly, Wikipedia has a page for its GWR and later BR incarnations, and separate pages for the two independent nineteenth century companies that formed the components of the line. The only sensible way of having just one page would be to merge everything else here. I don't think that is necessary, but in any case, it would still be a keep. SpinningSpark 13:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Spinningspark. It's possible that there needs to be some reorganisation of material between the three articles and/or a merge, but in the latter case this would be the target article and the others would be redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There's no consensus both regarding the level of sourcing and notability, and the validity of what I assume is indeed a deletion request by the subject. I am persuaded by DGG's argument for why, under these circumstances, I should not exercise whatever discretion I may have as closer to close this as "delete" per

WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Sandstein 16:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Érin Geraghty

Érin Geraghty (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)

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as nominator has not provided a valid reason for deletion.
    talk) 19:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

The subject appears to be notable under
talk) 20:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
talk) 03:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
talk) 06:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
It's an explanatory supplement, not a checklist. The subject is an actress with a decades-long career pursuing roles on screen and stage, successfully. Her career has plenty of RS coverage going back to at least 1971 (Variety review of Tales of Beatrix Potter), and in her later career she is described using phrases like "renowned British actress". She may have different preferences now, but her 40+ year public-facing career is a legitimate subject of a BLP-compliant article. I'm sure you are acting in good faith and we simply disagree, so it's probably a good time to let other editors weigh in.
talk) 08:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
She does, however, have her own website promoting herself as an actress! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Morgan Ginsberg: As far as I can tell, while this Twitter account isn't checkmark verified, it seems to be her. She's had it for ten years, and the account is highly active, racking up 20 500 tweets and 20 900 likes. That's about 12 posts a day, most of which seem to be related to the industry. So the claim that there's no public social media doesn't seem to be correct. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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_October_27&oldid=1142224355"