Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 11

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 10 September 12 September >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. There is firm consensus here that this page is not suitable for the mainspace. I could draftify it again, but given that the creator has edit-warred over moving it to mainspace, I am not going to refund this unless and until the creator undertakes to work on it in draftspace only. It can be moved to mainspace by someone else if and when it passes AfC. Vanamonde (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obinna Onyebuchi Muoma

Obinna Onyebuchi Muoma (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 producer. Can't find any actual reliable sources to support the claims here and i'm not even sure that the awards are notable. Possibly

WP:TOOSOON CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify This article is going through the AfC process and clearly still has a ways to go. signed, Rosguilltalk 03:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The principal author of this page moved it into article space when it was not ready for article space. I agree with Rosguill that draft space is a better place, and with Chrissymad that the case for notability has not been made. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • My response: I have been asking for help since last month on what next to do, it was moved straight to draft as soon as I uploaded it. So I started editing it by removing a lot of things that were included. Up till now I'm still willing to modify whatever you want to be modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabregado (talk • contribs) 14:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - For an admin, if we Draftify, and this page is moved to article space again without review by a reviewer, does that mean that we have to AFD it all over again, or does that mean that the principal author can be blocked for disruptive moving, or what? We are here because there was already one non-consensus move to article space. Therefore:
  • Draftify as an alternative to deletion, with the understanding that either Delete or Block are available if there is move-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I oppose draftifying it. Draft space isn't an incubator for unsourced, spammy, non-notable autobiographies. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • My response: It will interest me that you point out all the errors there in. I'm not unteachable or rigid. If you will point out the corrections I will gladly follow it through that's what I have been asking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabregado (talk • contribs) 14:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I do not want to argue over whether to delete or to draftify. My primary concern is to remove it from article space, for which it is not ready. I do not know whether it will ever be ready for article space. My guess is that it never will. The question is whether to give the author a chance, or to delete it now. I had not been seeing it as an autobiography. Is it an autobiography? Do we know that, or are we guessing? I will comment that the author moved it into article space without waiting for a reviewer. User:Rosguill - Do you think that it will be ready to be an article? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there are some indications that the subject is a notable figure within
WP:BITE it seems a bit harsh to nominate for deletion at this time. signed, Rosguilltalk 20:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Based on what sources? BITE doesn't apply here. The creator has been given plenty of guidance and warnings prior to this AFD. Winning non-notable awards doesn't help notability. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am generally hesitant to vote for deletion when a lack of notability could be a consequence of
WP:GNG. If they were to do this again after this AfD, I would consider their benefit of the doubt to have expired, but we're not there yet IMO. However, the more I review this article the less I believe that there is any possibility of notability. signed, Rosguilltalk 21:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I have for at least a year had mostly negative thoughts about the
bitey. This discussion identifies another problem, which is that it is being applied to the wrong subject. The guideline, or commandment, was only ever meant to apply to editors. Here it is being applied to an article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and quality of the encyclopedia should be foremost, because the purpose of behavioral policies and guidelines is to maintain a workplace in which the quality of the encyclopedia is upheld. If a page does not belong in article space, it should not be left in article space only because an editor is acting in good faith but is mistaken (as to notability or whatever). What should have been done instead of nominating the article for deletion? It could have been unilaterally draftified, but, since it had just been promoted by the author, that would have been move-warring. If it fails notability, it fails notability, and the good-faith of its author does not make it notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
So let's discuss notability considerations, not whether to be nice to a new editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what exactly do we need to know about the person in question?
    Notability in Nigeria is very subjective, it is a polarized place where people place premium on different issues. What maybe notable to you from the north may not for me from the East. That aside,I think we need to understand that the person in question has done more than I have written. He may not be widely popular because he is not on the screen, but he has really done so much not just for himself but the society at large, at his age and background . He is an inspiration to many people around here.
    But that's not the point. The point is,I need to know the exact problem so that I will correct it immediately.
    Please don't be hard on me,I'm still learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabregado (talk • contribs) 14:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would suggest that you read through
      reliable secondary sources unaffiliated with the subject. Currently, the article cites an interview (generally not used to justify notability due to its reliance on content provided by the subject), a stub listing of the subject's career profile (not independent, not a secondary source), some YouTube links (not secondary sources, probably not independent, don't provide in-depth coverage of the subject), and an award announcement for an award that doesn't appear to pass the notability guideline itself (not in-depth coverage, possibly not independent). signed, Rosguilltalk 17:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Delete does not meet the
    notability guidelines. I am considering here that there are many reliable news sources in Nigeria, and none of them have reported on this subject. Any notable subject will have been reported on by local sources. This is not a notable subject. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Film producers, as well as cinematographers and film editors, rarely get significant coverage, unless they have a substantial number of notable productions to their credit, and then often because one or several of their films have won national level awards. Here we have a
    WP:BITE is not relevant here. Sam Sailor 08:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) Kpgjhpjm 01:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Ethiopia national under-17 football team

Ethiopia national under-17 football team (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:NSPORT and has no notability shown AmericanAir88(talk) 22:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:00, 12 September 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. Canley (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Utah Transit Authority bus routes

List of Utah Transit Authority bus routes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page simply copies information from the transit authority's website without providing much additional material, unlike many other bus route lists which have historical background or detailed route statistics. Unfortunately, there does also not seem to be a significant or even existing group of editors available to keep this information updated, which would be required every route change, so in its current form, this list is forever outdated. Because of its redundancy to the information on the website, this page is not necessary. BRES2773 (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:51, 11 September 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. Tone 22:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ida Eide

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

This is an individual who tragically died at age 30. She was also the sister of a cross-country skier on Norway's national team, thus garnering attention. Ida Eide was also a skier herself, but as the article admits, not a comparatively accomplished one at that. Her highest level of competition was the nondescript Scandinavian Cup, with no top-15 placements in the national championships either. You will find lots of media attention post-mortem, but that unfortunately falls under

WP:ONEEVENT. Geschichte (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable cross country skier. An early death and being the sister of a better known skier are insufficient to show notability. I'd say
    WP:NSPORTS. Papaursa (talk) 18:29, 16 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zillakami

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

Does not appear to meet

WP:RS signed, Rosguilltalk 21:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ "New York Rapper Zillakami is Taking Hip-Hop to Brutal New Extremes".
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:54, 11 September 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 16:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hominids of the Ringworld

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

I'm unable to find a single reliable, third party source for this subject independent of the

WP:PLOT details. There's also no obvious page to merge, but that's a possibility if one's identified. But as it is, there's no way this article could be expanded or cleaned up. Cúchullain t/c 20:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete Not notable. Might count as original research – correct me if I'm wrong. The material is not enough to stand alone as its own article without sources. Rosalina2427 (talk to me) 18:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a single source. Normally, I'd suggest redirect to
    WP:V. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:24, 19 September 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) Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

The Oneironauts

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

A self-published book on a fringe topic with no independent references, created by an author with a likely COI.

π, ν) 20:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unambiguous
    talk) 20:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Given the COI declaration and the subsequent discussion below, changing !vote to Redirect to
talk) 21:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk) 21:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
In that case you need to follow
talk) 21:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Bakazaka: Thank you for the explanation. Next time I edit I will write that I am a connected contributor. Pkalas (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep. Is more information needed? I satisfy
    WP:PROFTEST and notability. The book concerns the history of how I acquired the Hubble Space Telescope image of the planetary system around Fomalhaut -- this image appeared on the front cover of the New York Times (2008) and is displayed at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C. Therefore my work is notable (not fringe) because it is highly visible publicly (as opposed to a narrow, specialized academic topic) and impactful in the history of discovering planets outside the solar system. An independent and unsolicited reviewer posted on 18-minute book review on YouTube. Someone could add this review to the "Reception" portion of the page. A copy of the book has also been requested (and provided) to a reviewer in a journal that publishes book reviews which would also go to the "Reception" portion of the page (once the review is published). The book description is objective and the tone is neutral. Pkalas (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Articles for Deletion discussions usually take a week or more, giving other editors time to chime in. Repeated voting by the same user will be taken into account by the editor who closes the discussion. Since the article is about a book and not a person,
talk) 19:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, more is needed (but almost certainly doesn't exist). The thesis of the book seems to be that your dreams predict the future, which is clearly a
π, ν) 20:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • WP:NBOOK
    and is independently notable of yourself. As far as reviews go, Wikipedia is pretty picky. Reviews published in self-published sources (SPS) like YouTube will almost always be seen as non-reliable sources on Wikipedia unless the SPS (in this case the YouTube channel hosting the review) is cited frequently enough in independent, reliable sources to be seen as a reliable source itself. It's incredibly rare for a SPS to gain this type of recognition, to be honest, which is why I never really bother using them in articles I'm trying to create or improve. The journal could be seen as reliable depending on its editorial oversight and status. Peer-reviewed journals are almost always seen as reliable sources on here. However that would only be one source at this point in time and you'd need more than this to really establish notability. Sometimes, if the sources make a claim of overwhelming notability such as the book winning a major award, 1-2 sources are enough but in the vast majority of cases book articles will need at least 3-4 to really pass NBOOK. The catch of the 1-2 sources part of NBOOK is that if there is that major of a claim to notability for the book, there will almost certainly be far more coverage out there (even if not on the Internet) to establish notability, making the 1-2 source point moot.
Since one was used in the article, e-commerce sites like Amazon are not seen as reliable sources because their primary goal is to sell you something. Its use can also make the page seem promotional -even if this is unintended by yourself - and can come across as Wikipedia endorsing the site or product. If you're just looking to back up publisher data, I'd recommend WorldCat. In any case, at this point I'd suggest that this be merged and summarized on your article given the lack of sourcing. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, if the book is primarily about your experiences and discovery, then covering this in your article would make sense since then it could be used to expand the article to contain more information about yourself. Since there's a conflict of interest here, I'd recommend that you work with another editor on this since it goes beyond the addition of non-controversial info (ie, stuff that would be seen as relatively minor to adding whole paragraphs of content.) ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • MoveThis book should really be listed on the author page and not have its own separate entry. As it stands it does not have enough information to live up to WP:NB. You can move most of the information on to the author page under Published Works. Auldhouse (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the additional information. I was using my colleague’s book Physics_for_Future_Presidents as a template. It seemed to me that this apppeared on Wikipedia in 2014 because it represented a portion of his scholarly work, not because it was notable. Note that it was published in 2008 — the book and the book reviews were six years out of date by 2014. In the last 10 years there are no other references to the book, which is not consistent with notability. Nevertheless, it represents his writing and thinking. In my case, it seems I created a book page too early instead of too late. Nevertheless, the book represents my writing and thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkalas (talk • contribs) 16:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reviews? Redirect to the author and cover
    ?) czar 19:34, 16 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ReiBoot

ReiBoot (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 article about

covert advertising, creator TechGeekRon is ACPERM gaming. MER-C 19:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Thomas (pastor)

Ashish Thomas (pastor) (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

independent, and most do not mention the subject in depth Rosguilltalk 18:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Euler's Day Off

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

This is a non-notable game that was probably invented by the article creator. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Probably should have been a speedy A11 long ago. Most search hits are post-2006 and are derived from this article. Search finds this from 2005 [6], submitted by a user with a partial name match to the username of this article's creator.
    talk) 20:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Here is an archive-url link to the now-defunct website for this game, copyrighted by Setterhouse, with the FAQ explaining its origins: [7]
talk) 20:48, 11 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maddox Gallery

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

I can't see how this business meets our

Wikipedia does not tolerate advertising of any kind. There is also, incidentally, a troubled history of interference from other connected parties, the most recent of which has attempted to blank the page; I don't think we need to let that deter us from deleting it if there is consensus to do so. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the main claim to notability seems to be the picture of Trump, already well covered at the artist's page. Additionally, I tend to feel any page that is only edited by COI accounts and good-faith editors doing damage control on those COI accounts should be deleted. This isn't policy, but spam made me a deletionist. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tentatively Obviously keep.
WP:INHERIT. The reviews have the potential to confer notability directly on the art gallery. You are incorrectly understanding these reviews as only conferring notability on artists and on artworks. The gallery plays a major role in mounting these exhibitions, not to mention in choosing which artists to select and which artworks to show. I am not arguing pointedly that this article should not be deleted. But you've got to take a rational approach to evaluating the suitability of art galleries. The comparisons to other businesses that you are are repeatedly making are inappropriate. In your edit summary here you are comparing an art gallery to a bookstore. Bookstores are virtually dictated to by forces well beyond their control. But gallerists often make highly independent decisions about what "product" to proffer to the customer. Bus stop (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
It is difficult to see how any art gallery could fail to be notable under this rationale. They all have exhibitions, and doubtless they can all get Phil Space to mention their exhibitions on page 94. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not this again. Bus stop should really give up on this line of reasoning. they have never found consensus for it, and in fact never bothered to show how it could work in practice when I proposed to them, as an example, an article entirely based on exhibition reviews of very notable artists with minimal mention of the gallery in Draft:Galerie Greta Meert. This cannot work, and it has no chance of finding consensus. It is high time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Vexations (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom—what would constitute "in-depth coverage about gallery itself"? Would that be type of lighting? How many square feet the gallery has? What would it be? Bus stop (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per
WP:NCORP: Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Vexations (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
In many instances there are reviews of art gallery exhibitions published by reliable sources. Would reviews of art exhibitions held by the art gallery constitute "evaluation of the product" per
WP:NCORP? Bus stop (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
If you have such a source, show it so we can evaluate it. If you don't have such a source then you're being disruptive. Vexations (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews of exhibitions have been removed in this edit prior to the nomination of this article for deletion. While I have not scrutinized each of the removed references, I see at a glance that some contain citations. The reasoning expressed in the edit summary also shows a non-recognition of an aspect of the policy of
"evaluation of the product" is a factor to be considered. How can we blithely remove references to "evaluation of the product" and then nominate an article for deletion? The edit summary says "exhibitions are the routine business of galleries, no need to list them here; would we list every book-signing at Hatchards? (or indeed, every book?". So what? The sources that are being removed are potentially evaluating the product, are they not? I picked a source at random, and this is the only source I've looked at. A photographer named David Yarrow
is mentioned. I read in the removed source:

"Also on show with Maddox Gallery in Miami will be the engrossing photography of David Yarrow, the world’s leading wildlife photographer. David Yarrow has built a world-class reputation for producing photographs of the planet’s most remote landscapes, cultures and endangered animals. His methods for enticing dangerous animals near enough to his lens for the best photograph include researching which animal is most attracted to which scent and then coating his camera in it as he lays in wait."

Considerably more is said in that source about Maddox Gallery and the artist and the artwork. I would contend that this constitutes
"evaluation of the product"
. The bottom line, at the very least, is that you can't just remove a list of reviews of exhibitions that have been held at the gallery over the years, and then nominate an article for deletion. That is unfair to the article. Apparently I'm just wasting my breath because I've raised this issue several times in the past.
I would contend that
common sense approach to our treatment of art galleries, especially those covering contemporary art. We are unfairly deleting articles on what in many instances are vital cultural institutions. Before new art reaches museums it passes through art galleries. These scrappy enterprises warrant special consideration and yet our notability guidelines do not specifically address them. Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Characterizing the work of artists who exhibit there as "products" of a gallery is tenuous. Do bookstores, theatres, and cinemas inherit notability from media coverage of the things they present for viewing/sale?
I don't support the notion that Wikipedia should give "special consideration" to promote "scrappy enterprises" which its editors deem "vital". You know, I happen to regard small independent booksellers and comics shops, family-run taquerías and pizza parlors, and cheap neighborhood pubs and queer bars as scrappy enterprises of great value to society, and the lifeblood of communities and their economies. But I don't think that makes it Wikipedia's responsibility to promote them.
Which is a not-a-vote of delete, for the record. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Characterizing the work of artists who exhibit there as 'products' of a gallery is tenuous." Please explain to me why works of art are not the "products" sold at art galleries.
  • "Do bookstores, theatres, and cinemas inherit notability from media coverage of the things they present for viewing/sale? We read in
    "discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product"
    . Art galleries sell art as their product. Reliably sourced reviews of art displayed for sale in an art gallery constitute "significant coverage" because they include "discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product".
  • "I don't support the notion that Wikipedia should give 'special consideration' to promote 'scrappy enterprises' which its editors deem 'vital'. You know, I happen to regard small independent booksellers and comics shops, family-run taquerías and pizza parlors, and cheap neighborhood pubs and queer bars as scrappy enterprises of great value to society, and the lifeblood of communities and their economies. But I don't think that makes it Wikipedia's responsibility to promote them." I agree 100%. I was merely explaining what art galleries are. They discover artists. This can't be said for museums. Museums are generally not scrappy enterprises. Bus stop (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please read more carefully: I said they are not the products of art galleries -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You said that as "scrappy enterprises" they should get "special consideration". That view is antithetical to NPOV. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I said that as scrappy enterprises art galleries should receive special consideration in Wikipedia then I stand corrected. I might have misspoken, as that is not the position I hold.
  • As to the question of whether or not artworks sold in galleries are "products" of art galleries—it is my position that in a sense they are. My reasoning here you may not entirely agree with, but the gallerist chooses what art to show. Ninety-nine artists approached the gallerist with works ranging from the representational to abstract to the conceptual to the surrealistic and of those ninety-nine artists the gallerist chose to represent only one of those artists. You may disagree but to me it is obvious that the gallerist chose which "product" to put on display and to place for sale within their gallery and therefore in a sense that artwork is the "product" of the art gallery, obviously shared with the artist. It is not unthinkable that a level of collaboration is attained between an attentive gallerist and an artist. In a sense I reject the absolutist understanding of an artist as an auteur who plots his own path without consideration of the feedback he might receive from others. In short, gallerists sometimes nurture artists and provide guidance. Bus stop (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"If"? You said it. It's right up there, and rather clearly expressed. Geez. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV
. I misspoke. Should I grovel? I've already said "that is not the position I hold." You have said that this is "antithetical to NPOV" and I agree.
Allow me to take this occasion to ask you to please not post your posts in the midst of my posts. There have been two instances of this in the past 24 hours and in each instance I've moved your post to what I hope is an acceptable placement on the page. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like you not to use weaselly post-factual rhetoric like "if I said that" when it's obvious that you did. I'd like you to say "Yes, I wrote that, but I didn't mean it." (I've responded to your points in places I thought would make the referent clearer. But I'll try harder to respond in places that don't place as much of a burden on you trying to remember what your principles are.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, "Yes, I wrote that, but I didn't mean it." Bus stop (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You guessed right: I disagree with this pretentious, gallerist-fondling twaddle. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
this is the only source I've looked at Really? Perhaps you should actually read the sources before you find a subject notable. Here's the list of all references that were ever in the article.
  1. http://artdaily.com/news/100477/Maddox-Gallery--Mayfair-presents-a-new-series-of-work-by-The-Connor-Brothers#.WjjX57SFiV4
  2. http://fadmagazine.com/2016/10/30/top-6-art-exhibitions-see-london-week-3/
  3. http://hrhcountessofwessex.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/sophie-joins-colombias-first-lady-on.html
  4. http://nypost.com/2016/08/16/ak-47-artwork-banned-from-entering-us/
  5. http://sabotagetimes.com/life/bradley-theodore-son-of-the-soil-opens-in-london
  6. http://wsimag.com/art/22142-retrospective
  7. http://www.artnet.com/galleries/maddox-gallery/maddox-gallery-at-art-miami-2017/
  8. http://www.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/2675551/works-on-paper-by-the-connor-brothers-at-maddox-gallery
  9. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/controversial-nude-donald-trump-painting-now-on-display-in-london/
  10. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3398931/Starting-early-Tamara-Ecclestone-cuts-chic-figure-tailored-jacket-thigh-high-boots-daughter-Sophia-shop-pricey-artwork.html
  11. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3430747/Lindsay-Lohan-goes-relaxed-look-leggings-asymmetrical-supports-photographer-pal-Tyler-Shields-exhibition.html
  12. http://www.dazeddigital.com/art-photography/article/39950/1/catching-up-with-mr-brainwash-the-artist-who-out-banksyed-banksy
  13. http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/gq-men-of-the-year-winners-2017
  14. http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/gallery/david-the-untouchables-exhibition
  15. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/bob-chaundy/dan-baldwin-art-influence_b_12361058.html
  16. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/bob-chaundy/eden-by-simafra-maddox-ga_b_14490840.html
  17. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/chris-moon/how-do-artists-collaborat_b_12082032.html
  18. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/banned-nude-donald-trump-artwork-be-displayed-first-time-londons-maddox-gallery-1553647
  19. http://www.ikonlondonmagazine.com/maddox-gallery-retna/4594063458
  20. http://www.ikonlondonmagazine.com/son-of-the-soil-the-first-uk-solo-exhibition-by-bradley-theodore-at-maddox-gallery/
  21. http://www.lonelyplanet.com/news/2016/11/17/secret-art-on-a-postcard-auction/
  22. http://www.luxurylondon.co.uk/article/disseverance-maddox-gallery-chris-moon-robi-walters-interview
  23. http://www.luxurylondon.co.uk/article/james-nicholls-maddox-gallery-the-art-q-a
  24. http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/john-terry-made-in-chelsea-10258935
  25. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/diamondencrusted-donald-trump-artwork-bought-by-collector-an-hour-after-going-on-show-in-mayfair-a3444811.html
  26. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/17/nude-donald-trump-painting-illma-gore-lawsuits
  27. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/07/donald-trump-penis-painting-ilma-gore
  28. http://www.visitlondon.com/things-to-do/event/43382677-maddox-gallery-opens-in-mayfair-at-maddox-gallery
  29. http://www.vogue.in/content/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-second-edition-of-bahrains-art-fair/#david-risley-and-bradley-theodore
  30. https:///www.worldcat.org/issn/0307-1235
  31. https://howtospendit.ft.com/art/202472-leading-london-art-gallery-opens-with-a-bang-in-gstaad
  32. https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/david-yarrow-wildlife-photographer-goal-take-four-good-photos-year/
  33. https://maddoxgallery.co.uk/artists/
  34. https://maddoxgallery.co.uk/artists/retna-margraves-october-2017/
  35. https://maddoxgallery.co.uk/events/maddox-gallery-westbourne-grove-launch-night/
  36. https://maddoxgallery.co.uk/maddox-gallery/about/our-curator/
  37. https://maddoxgallery.co.uk/news/maddox-gallerys-james-nicholls-announced-guest-art-critic-london-live/
  38. https://maddoxgallery.co.uk/press-release/bradley-theodore-second-coming/
  39. https://maddoxgallery.co.uk/press-release/countess-wessex-colombias-first-lady-visit-maddox-gallery/
  40. https://maddoxgallery.co.uk/press-release/maddox-gallery-sponsor-artist-category-gq-men-year-awards-2017/
  41. https://nypost.com/2016/08/16/ak-47-artwork-banned-from-entering-us/
  42. https://www.artrabbit.com/events/autumn-contemporary
  43. https://www.barnebys.co.uk/blog/article/10506
  44. https://www.barnebys.co.uk/blog/article/10506/
  45. https://www.barnebys.co.uk/blog/article/7747/looks-like-donald-trump-will-be-spending-the-summer-in-londo/
  46. https://www.barnebys.com/blog/article/11706/danny-minnicks-one-love-at-maddox-gallery/
  47. https://www.barnebys.com/blog/article/8719/maddox-gallery-raises-over-245-000-for-caudwell-children-and/
  48. https://www.caudwellchildren.com/maddoxgalleryauction/
  49. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/660300/teenage-cancer-trust-va-exhibition-the-adoration-trilogy
  50. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ceciliarodriguez/2017/09/15/12-breathtaking-wildlife-photos-from-david-yarrows-new-london-and-paris-exhibitions/#17641fc94d38
  51. https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/goodie-bags-men-of-the-year-2018
  52. https://www.nme.com/news/music/jeremy-corbyn-stormzy-gq-awards-2134599
  53. https://www.standard.co.uk/go/london/arts/mr-brainwash-interview-i-feel-like-i-was-a-good-part-of-banksy-s-life-a3816876.html
  54. https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/esmagazine/how-bradley-theodores-mural-of-karl-lagerfeld-and-anna-wintour-made-him-the-alists-favourite-artist-a3512446.html
  55. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-artist-reveals-dismay-as-ak47-artwork-is-banned-from-entering-us-a3321001.html
  56. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/art/seven-opie-figures-go-five-figure-sums-american-sales-attract/
  57. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/17/nude-donald-trump-painting-illma-gore-lawsuits
  58. https://www.themayfairawards.co.uk/winners
  59. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1820451/artist-lincoln-townley-dubbed-the-new-warhol-reveals-paintings-of-worlds-leading-supermodels/
  60. https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/9/11184660/facebook-ban-artist-donald-trump-penis
  61. https://www.we-heart.com/2016/10/17/dan-baldwin-under-influence-maddox-gallery/
I think you'll find upon evaluating them that there were good reasons many of them were removed. --Vexations (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product". If you disagree with that, then that is what we should be discussing. Yes, I picked a random source. It was this source. Do you disagree that that source contains discussion, analysis, and evaluation of the product? Let's look at another source. How about this one. The Guardian is a source of impeccable quality. The subtitle is "Illma Gore’s painting, on display at Maddox Gallery in London now with a £1m pricetag, depicts the Republican presidential candidate with a small penis". That is a discussion of the product on display (and for sale) at the Maddox Gallery. Also contained in that citation: "Cordelia de Freitas, Maddox gallery director, said: 'It only really got out of hand when Donald Trump referenced it in a debate, which sums up Trump and his ego. From there, everyone wanted to see this image.'" There are several more Guardian citations in the list that you posted above. Thanks for compiling them all in one place. In my opinion the first order of business is rescuing this article from deletion. Bus stop (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
User:Bus stop I regret that based on your not actually reading the sources prior to forming an opinion on the notability of the subject, I cannot take your contributions to this AfD seriously. You're just trying to make the same flawed argument that you've been making elsewhere that exhibition reviews can establish the notability of art galleries. It doesn't. You're misreading "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." to give you license to include https://www.artrabbit.com/events/autumn-contemporary as a source for Autumn Contemporary - Group exhibition. That is absurd. It's a press release. Vexations (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing++ 14:25, 19 September 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. Nominator withdrew.

(non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Chicago Falcons

Chicago Falcons (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)
There are many issues here.

The first is that the main subject of the article in its current state, is that of a very minor local semi-pro football team. Its

WP:FOOTYN. Due to its age, there is a possibility of printed media coverage that I am not finding, which if that is the case, then it should at least have its own page as it is completely unrelated to the semipro American football team. Yosemiter (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdrawn by nominator, the Footy project believes the soccer club is notable for the US Open Cup and there are at least some printed refs and books about that at least mention or discuss the Falcons. I would like to see better references used than the stats pages currently on the page. However, I have reverted the article to the point prior to the article overwrite of the semipro American football team because it seems fairly clear that all involved feel that subject does not meet
WP:GNG. In a related subject, the same editors that overwrote this article created Asif Ali (American football), which I have nominated for deletion here for having both insubstantial independent sources for GNG and clearly false claims. Yosemiter (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yosemiter (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate this is a prime example of an article that is so bad it should be deleted... not that it wouldn't be served well with two separate articles (maybe yes, maybe no) but until that is determined and cleaned up, I don't think we can accurately assess what we are looking at.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the nominator has withdrawn and there seems to be editors enthusiastic about cleaning this one up, I happily change my position to Keep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, kind of. There are two articles here where there should only be one, and Yosemiter has done a good job of describing the issue. The gridiron team is clearly non-notable, despite the sources all of them are primary, and some of their links (Asif Ali) probably could be AfD'd as well. The football team appears absolutely notable for winning the U.S. Open Cup in 1953. I don't have a subscription to the site and can't verify the quality of the article, but I can say they were definitely mentioned in media at the time: [9] I would recommend restoring the article to the revision on November 2017, which is just about the football team. SportingFlyer talk 23:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - please note that the original article I created was about a defunct, notable soccer team (which won the US soccer national cup!) - it has since been hijacked by an IP about a gridiron team. No comment on their notability. If both are notable, the article needs to be split. If the American Football team is not notable then strip it back down to the soccer team. GiantSnowman 11:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since I was unfamiliar with FOOTYN standards (which is why I made sure to alert the original creator), I am willing to withdraw this nomination based on reverting back to the article about the football team. I have since found they are mentioned in some books, but I am not sure on the significant coverage there to meet GNG. I am not positive I agree that winning the US Open Cup in 1953 would have been well covered then as mostly amateur or semipro teams competed for it at that time (such as the NSL Falcons themselves). That might be a discussion for another day though. But right now, we seem to agree that the nomination for the American football team is a theoretical delete/revert additions. Yosemiter (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've found a couple period sources and want to flesh out the soccer article but am loathe to do it with the way the article stands at the moment. You're right in the sense the cup final didn't have a great level of coverage but it was discussed in newspapers in the areas where soccer was popular at the time (St. Louis, Chicago, Brooklyn) and Sports Illustrated did run the scores of the semifinals and finals. SportingFlyer talk 04:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SportingFlyer: I ahve the article back to the likely notable subject. Please add your sources and remove the ref improve tag once added. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for restoring the article. I've struggled a bit because I don't have full access to the newspapers and the OCRs are typically terrible, but have improved the article/sources. I'm particularly frustrated since I haven't been able to find anything using internet searches in 1950s Chicago-area newspapers - the Chicago Public Library has online newspaper access, but I'm not local to Chicago and can't review it, but I have a feeling there's more information out there. SportingFlyer talk 20:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep content for the original notable subject. Strip out the crufty addon stuff.--
    WP:WAWARD) 13:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable people and groups accused of sexual misconduct since the Me Too movement

List of notable people and groups accused of sexual misconduct since the Me Too movement (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 content was split off from the

talk) 16:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:04, 11 September 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

WP:GNG standard. Just asserting that it's met doesn't leave the closer much to go on. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Chrissy Houlahan

Chrissy Houlahan (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)

Per

WP:TOOSOON. If she wins her election she'll meet notability standards, but as a candidate, she does not. Marquardtika (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agava

Agava (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 has been tagged as being in need of additional citations for ten years (since 12/2007) and as not meeting

COMPANY for three years. The article as it currently exists reads like an advertisement and is purely promotional outside of the brief informational lead. StrikerforceTalk 16:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:07, 11 September 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 Jože Brilej. Tone 09:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marta Brilej

Marta Brilej (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)

Haven't been able to find any sources that mention her in more than just passing, which doesn't show notability for an article. Natureium (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Jože Brilej. Her accomplishments listed in the article (war activities, PR for the tourism board, awards, various firsts) aren't sufficient on their own for notability -- I doubt that good enough reliable sources exist. Wikiacc () 23:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails
    WP:V for that matter). Bradv 01:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V
argues for a straight delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a redirect as an alternative to deletion, if that helps. Marta is mentioned in the Jože Brilej article, so a redirect makes sense. Bradv 17:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dianne Jacob

Dianne Jacob (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)

Inadequately sourced article about a person notable only as a county councillor. As always, people at the county level of government are not handed an automatic free pass over

WP:GNG, and three are from a community hyperlocal webmedia startup rather than a notability-supporting major media outlet. Every county councillor in North America could always show a handful of local coverage in the local media, so this is not enough coverage to make her a special notability case among an otherwise not inherently notable class of topic. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing to indicate this minor local politician is especially notable per
    significant coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete county council members are not automatically notable; and there appears to be no alternative claim to notability here. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 13 September 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Burrs Mill Lake

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

A rather non-notable lake with no independent reliable sources, at least that I could find. Actually I could not locate that this lake even exists, at least on Google Maps. I tried looking along Burrs Mills Road and Route 70 in both Southampton and Pemberton. There is a Burrs Mill Brook Reservoir which is a pretty good size but even that does not have many reliable sources to include. Tinton5 (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Try also:
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
--Doncram (talk) 06:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Burrs Mill Brook Reservoir is listed as GNIS ID 884193 (see here), but GNIS lists no Burrs Mill Lake. I'm not sure that the reservoir merits its own article, but it's clear that the lake does not. Alansohn (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wp:BOLDly moved the article to Burrs Mill Brook Reservoir. It is usually not good to make moves of an article under AFD discussion, but this seemed silly to me... there is sentiment towards acknowledging that the properly named reservoir exists and is notable, while if it is mis-named the topic is asserted to be non-notable. Whatever. Please discuss the notability of Burrs Mill Brook Reservoir. It seems to be a geographical feature, therefore it is notable. --Doncram (talk) 06:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename to

WP:BOLD move that Doncram below has made, which fixed the naming issue but complicated this AfD discussion a bit. Both of those votes are on Burrs Mill Lake, the old name, rather than Burrs Mill Brook Reservoir, which Doncram moved it to. Yetisyny (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yetisyny, the rename is a step forward, but the article that remains for the reservoir has no sources and no indication for why it should have an article. I'd be glad to reconsider my vote once appropriate reliable and verifiable sourcing has been added to demonstrate a measure of notability above and beyond its existence on a database. Alansohn (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even properly named as Burrs Mill Brook Reservoir, I see no indication it is notable. I disagree with the above synopsis of
    WP:NGEO. NGEO says features CAN be notable IF "enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article..." "beyond statistics and coordinates." I haven't found anything beyond routine directory type listings. The best is this one which only adds that it is 3.5 miles from somewhere else and doesn't even know what species of fish can be caught there. Just not enough to support an article. MB 00:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per MB and Alansohn. It seems I did not understand
    WP:NGEO again, reading the text carefully, as well as taking what MB said about its meaning into account, and it became immediately apparent to me that MB was right and I had been wrong. Thus I have crossed out my earlier vote and am in total agreement with MB. I thank MB for educating me on this matter with such a good explanation of what that policy means and how it applies in this case. Yetisyny (talk) 04:12, 14 September 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Cox (politician)

Greg Cox (politician) (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)

Inadequately sourced

reliable source coverage that suggests he's got a credible claim to being substantially more notable than most other county councillors. Showing just enough sourcing to nominally verify that he exists is not enough -- but with just one local news hit and his own primary source profile on the county board's own self-published website, this is not sourced well enough. And even on the level of content, considerably more than half of this article is taken up by a list of the city neighborhoods that happen to be contained in his district, while the content about him literally doesn't go even one inch beyond "he exists". Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another minor local politician without any significant claim to actually being notable. No sources demonstrate
    significant coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete for reasons explained by Nom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no requirement that politicians have to be "more notable than most other" politicians at the same level, only that they have received in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. That said, Cox is very much more notable than most County Supervisors, as a
    WP:NPOL), and this has been the case for decades. Rather than listing sources here, I invite editors to look at my expansion of the article. FourViolas (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
That's not a policy-based deletion rationale either: NPOL and GNG say nothing about sources' scope, only their reliability (A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists), and
Times of San Diego
is a younger source but one that has also won a number of journalism awards.
That said, the LA Times has written about Cox many times about aspects other than the COI allegation: they've covered Cox giving speeches; being endorsed; fighting environmental regulations to get the Chula Vista Bayfront project approved [10] [11] [12] and to build a Navy housing project; asking for surplus Port money; and more recent activity [13] [14]. He's also been mentioned in national [15] [16] and local non-California media [17] [18]. FourViolas (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, "none of them are about him"?? I must be missing something. I had the sense that at least most of them were "about" him, but that only some of these would count towards a notability argument. I am not sure you can argue that the article(s) discussing his becoming president of the NAC is about the NAC or its presidency with Cox merely a byproduct of that coverage.
talk) 18:38, 18 September 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. No consensus emerged in this discussion. References were improved yet arguments still went both ways. This time closed with prejudice against fast renomination.

(non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Workers Development Union

AfDs for this article:
Workers Development Union (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)

WP:NPASR
applies.

I don't think, a single HT piece confers any notability to the organisation. ∯WBGconverse 13:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 13:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have removed all references to the own website that were used as source. Then I removed a passing mention that was used as source. Then I removed two non-independent (Jesuit) sources, that were in fact identical albeit in different languages. So now there is an article what is largely unsourced, with the exception of one part of their work. No sopurces about the organisation itself and the tone and style of the article are still promotional. The Banner talk 17:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an article about a subject with no notability. I searched and could not find SIGCOV. I removed along promotional section of the article that had a dozen or so CN tags. What's left is basically nothing. This AFD is appropriate, as the last AfD had no logical keep votes. It was all SOURCESMUSTEXIST and ILIKEIT, as someone pointed out there. The first keep vote it had said "well they have 42 staff, they must be notable." Thus the last Afd made no policy-driven keep arguments.
    talk) 01:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

@Ritchie333: can you please take a look a this .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I said "no prejudice against renomination", so I'm ambivalent about this. I have no strong opinions on whether the article stays or goes. That said, going immediately to a second AfD is mildly disruptive - have all the participants in the first AfD being pinged? If not, why not? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPASR.Mildly disruptive, probably.But, given the quality of the debate from the other camp, I don't bother any. Pinging @GSS and Peterkingiron:-Since, you've participated in the previous AfD. (Jzsj is blocked and has got a Twinkle notification, at any case.....).At any case, some fresh eyes will be good enough:) ∯WBGconverse 11:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Also @Atlantic306::-Since, you've participated in the previous AfD.∯WBGconverse 15:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, I don't see how any of those contribute to
WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Changing my opinion to keep, per
WP:UE notwithstanding, we might do better to change the title to Shramik Abhivrudhi Sangh, since that seems to be the only way it's referred to in sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • @RoySmith: .The organisation is referred by its Indian name Shramik Abhivrudhi Sangh in the 3 The Hindu refrences not by Workers Development Union and Food and Agriculture Organization does refer to it by its name Shramik Abhivrudhi Sangh in this pg 20.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was aware of that in my first nomination. But the sources you are adding just add more of the same to just one part of their work. But unfortunately, they say nothing in depth about the organisation. The Banner talk 20:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the changes and high quality sources added by Pharaoh of the Wizards, which push this over
    WP:ORG ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:24, 19 September 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David M. Diamond

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

Does not satisfy

WP:NACADEMIC as written. Google search shows that he did write a paper on why parents forget that they have left their children in hot cars, which is one step beyond knowing that he exists. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Is also an expert witness on Forgotten baby syndrome. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - I see no "also". Leaving children in hot cars is the same as forgotten baby syndrome. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "also" applies to his expert witness status, as well as his academic status. He did not just "write a paper" on this but is a widely sought authority for criminal trials, and widely quoted in mainstream media. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:27, 11 September 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) StrikerforceTalk 15:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Jethalal Gada

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

Not follow

MOS:TVCAST or Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction#Characters_and_other_fictional_elements. Treats character a real person. Covered in List of Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah characters. Only one ureliable reference. Nizil (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Please look at the aticle. Subject is treated as a real person in the article and there is lack of sources in the article because there are not many references discussing about the character in real world sense. We already cover this information in main sitcom aricle as well as in characters article. Why we need a separate article on a single character if we already have an article on characters of the sitcom? Please see
    MOS:TVCAST. Most references you listed above are in-universe information or provide little information about Jethalal character. Regards,-Nizil (talk
    )
"Why we need a separate article on a single character"? -- Because he is the central character appearing in each and every episode of the longest 10 years running most popular sitcom series of india .. --Adamstraw99 (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He is a central character of a long-running show but look at the article which has only "in-universe" information. There are not much references on the "real world" information about the character. I am asking the reason for a separate article because we have already separate List article for characters. -Nizil (talk) 05:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Taarak Mehta's Jethalal Dilip Joshi shocked by Dr Haathi aka Kavi Kumar Azad's death". https://www.hindustantimes.com/. 2018-07-09. Retrieved 2018-08-28. {{cite news}}: External link in |work= (help)
  2. ^ "Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah: It's been 10 years, 2500 episodes but Tapu Sena, Gokuldham members feel like it's just the beginning". Mumbai Mirror. Retrieved 2018-08-28.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WAX does not help. Every article is judged on its own merit. It is not about Indian or other nationality issues.-Nizil (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • keep-
    talk) 00:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Hamim000000, we already have separate list article on characters. Why we need separate article on single character? Do we have enough real world informaion on him to have a separate article?-Nizil (talk) 05:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Well many mainstream media already covered Jethalal Gada. That's why I think the article should not be deleted. And one think I want to add that we created a separate article on tnkoc cast although we covered the cast in
talk) 13:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I think there is not enough well referenced real-world information to have separated article for Jethalal Gada and what is covered is "in-universe". All in-universe information on him is also covered in characters article. So in my opinion, there is no need for separate article even if he is daily appearing TV character.-Nizil (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from hundreds of popular videos, Jethalal and his popularity is very much covered in numerous sources [24] , [25] , [26] , [27] , [28] , [29].. and i can post many more coverage but info in my trail comments and this must convince you unless there is some competitive agenda IMHO, Thanks --Adamstraw99 (talk) 09:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adamstraw99, Jethalal is a popular character but there is already an article on characters which covers information on him. The references you posted above has no detailed information on his characters apart from telling that it is popular and successful. This thing is already covered in the character article and thus no separate article is needed IMO. If we have references on role, development, Characterization, themes, critical reception of Jethalal; I would agree to have separate article from the characters article but I could not find any details. So the subject is better served by the character article alone. -Nizil (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to
    existence of other stuff, I fail to note any merit in the claims of keep !voters.∯WBGconverse 13:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge and Redirect to
    WP:TNT. I did not expect we would have characters from shows, but I can see we do at least have some (e.g. Shaggy_Rogers). It's not clear to me there is enough secondary independent coverage to justify its own article. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:04, 21 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queer Collaborations

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

Article about an annual conference, which makes no particularly strong claim of notability beyond the fact that it exists. This is "referenced" solely to a linkfarm of external links to its own

WP:EVENT. As always, every event that exists is not automatically entitled to use Wikipedia to promote itself -- but neither the text nor the quality of referencing are offering strong reasons why this would qualify for an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self-published sources have been used for promoting this event and nothing more than this can be found. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major national conference going back decades - important part of Australian LGBT history. Needs cleanup, not deletion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't keep unreferenced articles just because somebody asserts that the topic is "major" and "important" — what would actually need to be shown to get this kept is that
reliable source coverage actually exists for it to be cleaned up with. Media coverage about this is who has to tell us that it's "major" and "important" enough to have an encyclopedia article — an unreferenced assertion of importance is not enough all by itself, because anybody could simply say that about anything if they didn't actually have to show the sources to prove it. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 12:49, 11 September 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. North America1000 17:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Union Times Today

Union Times Today (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)

Unsourced since 2010. An admittedly cursory Google search shows some blogs, a couple basic profile pages (that appear to be submitted by the subject), and their own social media pages. Fails

talk) 22:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
69 22:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
69 22:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 12:48, 11 September 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

Paragons (comics). -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Preview (comics)

Preview (comics) (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)

Character does not meet

WP:GNG. Character appears five times according to Marvel Wikia, and the page is linked by three non-list articles. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
69 22:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to
    Paragons (comics). Bradv 13:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) Lourdes 13:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Hakkō-ryū

Hakkō-ryū (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 to show this style meets the martial arts notability standards at

WP:MANOTE and lacks the coverage needed to meet the GNG. The only sources are self-published and the Aikido Journal. Even if the Aikido Journal is a reliable source, the GNG is not met.Sandals1 (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Sandals1 (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems the no proper search has been performed as required per
    WP:MANOTE. Hzh (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Articles from this style's federation and books by people who teach the art do not constitute significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. Can you point to coverage that actually satisfies
WP:GNG? Papaursa (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I only see one official book. I don't how you define independent, but only experts can write books on their expert subject, do you object to books written by scientists (or other academics) on the subject they specialised in or taught? If you did, you find that a large chunk of sources would need to be removed from Wikipedia as they are written by experts, and you end up with half-informed rubbish written by non-experts. Did you check the sources in Japanese as well? Hzh (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since I don't read Japanese there would be little point in me looking at Japanese sources. However, I would point you to
WP:GNG where it says ' "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.' I would say that eliminates teachers of Hakkō-ryū. Scientists would not be considered independent of the school they teach at. Papaursa (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Per
WP:MEDRS, reviews are preferred, and they can only be written by experts who understand their subjects well, which by your interpretation would not be permitted, therefore your understanding of "independent" is not what it is intended to mean. In any case, how did you know that the authors are teachers rather than people who knows their subject very well? Hzh (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Did you read what I actually wrote? I didn't say non-English sources were unacceptable, I said I can't read them so why would I look at them. Feel free to use them as long as you can say in English why the source shows notability. Please note I talked about scientists and their school (not their field), which is correct analogy when talking about martial arts instructors. When the author is listed as a shihan, it's not rocket science to figure he's a martial arts teacher. It's also worth mentioning that just because a subject is notable in another language's wiki does not mean it's automatically notable in the English WP. Papaursa (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is sourced, that is the point, especially when the nom noted that there is also the Aikido Journal in the English wiki. I only gave examples of books specifically on the subject, but there are in fact other English sources, e.g. Black Belt magazine - [35][36][37], and [38] (all these from just a minute or two of Googling) It is clear from the abundance of sources that
WP:BEFORE had not been performed. Hzh (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The refs offered above check out in sufficient depth and quantity to satisfy gng. Those in the article are all primary or 404 and could be replaced to prevent a rerun of this afd in the future. Szzuk (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak Keep The Black Belt magazine articles are OK, but only count as 1 source. The Aikiko Journal sources are a one paragraph overview of the art and an interview. The mention in the book on "The Art of Arrests" says this art's use by law enforcement is "almost non-existent". Altogether, these sources are not nothing but they also don't make this a slam-dunk case for notability. While I think Hzh has overstated the coverage of this style, I don't believe it's an obvious delete candidate either. At this time I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and hope the article gets improved sourcing. Papaursa (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not determined by whether something is being used by the police, but by the sources about the subject. Hzh (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wind-Up Bird

The Wind-Up Bird (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)

Appears to fail our music notability guidelines. TheDragonFire (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails
    WP:BAND. It's a shame, but I can't find anything beyond the Pitchfork review already cited in the article and a review by an unnamed guest reviewer on Tiny Mix Tapes, which won't count as an RS. There don't appear to be any more releases under the name the Wind-Up Bird other than those already listed in the article – Joe Grimm reverted to using his real name, put out a couple of self-released tracks in 2007, and then the Brain Cloud album in 2008, and has been pretty quiet ever since. So there are unlikely to be any more sources about this group from 2006 onwards. Richard3120 (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, a music project, no evidence of notability in the article or on google i can see. Szzuk (talk) 12:54, 18 September 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. Per the analysis of the text refs that shows them to not be significant coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cantus Musicus

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

I put up the request on 27 August 2018 because it does not comply with

talk) 07:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Classical music. Voceditenore (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Atlantic, have you really checked all the references given in the article? I spent 2 days trying to find sources for most of them but couldn't find. Some of the links pointing to "blank pages" or pages without the contents mentioned. As mentioned, I was trying to improve the article until I realized that most of the contents have no sources, in which we cant tell whether they are true. --
    talk) 14:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Hi Nosebagbear, I was not referring to text reference only but overall contents and "link" references given - in which most are not accessible. Look at Germany embassy links and many more. I have searched on the net, some of the events mentioned cannot be found. Read my reply to Atlantic306. Secondly, the group is not noted enough but the contents are overrated. Some of them are based on "the author's opinion". Addition: The choir group has no website but a Facebook only. In their Facebook, they pointed Wikipedia as their website. It looks like it is used for marketing purposes --
    talk) 14:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm still thinking about this, but am currently inclined towards deletion. The references and the article itself are heavily "padded" with material that has nothing whatsoever to do with the choir. This section is a prime example. The sole reference provided there [39] does not even mention this choir let alone support the assertion "Cantus Musicus has been accompanied by various pipe organists playing the Riddell-Eminent pipe organ in St Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Kuala Lumpur, on a number of occasions." There are multiple examples of these shenanigans in the references especially in the lead paragraph which asserts that various people have praised the choir. That and the obvious COI of the single-purpose accounts who are the principal editors of this article leads me to highly mistrust the putative contents of the offline sources. Basically, this is a small amateur choir that sings occasionally in church services and at minor events for charities, local organizations, and embassies. There is no evidence whatsoever that it passes any of the criteria at
    WP:GNG. Given that it has been in existence for 15 years and is still performing, there should be much more independent coverage available in the mainstream Malaysian press. All I have been able to find are two reviews in the "Community" section of The Star (2006 2017) and this one in the now online-only Malay Mail. References consisting of concert programs and announcements do not attest to notability. If this article is kept, it will need to be drastically pruned solely to what can be verified and will need a major copy edit for neutral point of view and encyclopedic content and tone. Voceditenore (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per VdT, fails
    independent reliable sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Indeed! Some of the "references" are not even that. In the current version, there are 6 citations that merely repeat the name of the event (footnotes 2, 11, 14, 15, 25, 30). There are many others which fail to mention the choir at all, but simply link to biographies of people they have allegedly collaborated with or places where they have allegedly performed (footnotes 6, 7, 8, 9. 10, 11, 13, 40, 43, 45). Two more (those supporting alleged praise of the choir by various musicians) refer vaguely to an "interview" with the artist but give no indication that these interviews were ever published (footnotes 1, 5). This is what I meant above by the article being heavily (and misleadingly) "padded". Then we have footnote 49, a brief article in a local UK paper about an unfortunate woman who threw herself under a train. It mentions at the end in one sentence that she had been a former member of this choir when she was living in Malaysia. Voceditenore (talk) 08:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cantus musicus" seems to be the latin for "a musical air" [40] or "harmonious singing" [41]. It appears in hundreds of sources in GBooks, though many cannot refer to this choir because they were published long before 2003. Even if this choir was not notable (no comment on that yet), we might well want this page name for its original meaning. James500 (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Actually, "cantus musicus" is a later term for "cantus figuratus" and means the same thing [42]. It is used in contrast to "
cantus planus". If this article is kept, it should be disambiguated as Cantus Musicus (ensemble). Incidentally, there's a Swiss early music ensemble called "Cantus Figuratus". Voceditenore (talk) 08:57, 18 September 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.

WP:NPASR – Juliancolton | Talk 00:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Carl Freedman Gallery

Carl Freedman Gallery (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:GNG I can find no in-depth coverage, only routine listings, the history also shows single purpose accounts, undeclared paid editing and conflicts of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I haven't yet looked for sources, but Carl Freedman (the gallerist) seems notable. Merge or redirect are viable alternatives to deletion. I have updates some articles that didn't link to the gallery. There are now eight artists' biographies that link to Carl Freedman Gallery. Vexations (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here is a
    Carl Freedman Gallery. Bus stop (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
If you mean this: https://frieze.com/article/thilo-heinzmann it can only be used to say that Thilo Heinzmann had his first solo exhibition with Carl Freedman Gallery in 2009. There is no other information about the gallery in that article. Vexations (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry I neglected to link to it. A review of an exhibition at an art gallery tends to confer notability on the gallery. We already have an article on
Carl Freedman Gallery. The question here is not whether a source can provide additional information for our article. The question is whether or not notability can be established for the gallery. Bus stop (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lazimah

Lazimah (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)

Unsourced, unverified, no evidence of notability outside Wikipedia derived listings etc. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vidya Sagar Career Institute Limited

Vidya Sagar Career Institute Limited (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:NORG. 4 of the 5 sources are affiliated and the 5 th is a passing mention Dom from Paris (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly not but I am more and more convinced that a deletion discussion is actually better in anything but the most obvious and blatant cases because a CSD deletion can be recreated and as anyone apart from the creator can contest the CSD we often end up with an Afd anyway. And a delete consensus allows us to G4 and this can only be legitimately removed by an admin. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence that this meets notability guidelines, references fail ORGIND and/or CORPDEPTH, topic fails GNG and NCORP.
    HighKing++ 14:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khatm Kabir

Khatm Kabir (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)

Unsourced, unverified. 'Khatm Kabir' means 'A lot of stamping' in Arabic, which just sounds odd. Additionally, the pin puts it on the East coast of the UAE and Umm Al Quwain is on the West Coast. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless, inaccurate, uncited three-word "article". Please also note that the nominator has lived in the UAE for 25 years. Softlavender (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Too short, not useful at all. The article is not even passed as stub --
    talk) 11:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awanat, Umm al-Quwain

Awanat, Umm al-Quwain (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)

Unsourced, unverified. Pin points to settlement of Falaj Al Mualla. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless, inaccurate, uncited three-word "article". Please also note that the nominator has lived in the UAE for 25 years. Softlavender (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In agreement with the nominator. If the pin is correct (no sources), this would be a neighborhood of
    Falaj Al-Mu'alla, itself an extremely short article. gidonb (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snow keep.

(non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Violence against women in Ukraine

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

The problem is definitely exaggerated. One third of all women in the world suffer violence against them. In WHO report for a selection of European countries (including Ukraine) this percentage makes up 25% (1/4 only). Per this Ukrainian study it's even lower - 22% of women aged 15-49 experience some type of physical violence or sexual violence. See also this article on gender equality in Ukraine. Since 2017 domestic violence is criminalized. So generally, the topic of this article is

made out of thin air Piramidion 09:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? Discussing the possibility of creating articles in an encyclopedia on adjacent topics and on the same topic for other countries is "shameful and irrelevant"? Or you just chose not to notice my conclusion "otherwise this is not an encyclopedic approach"? Or perhaps you call my suggestions to create other articles a "whataboutism"? Or what was that comment of yours?--Piramidion 12:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See
WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Saying that violence against Ukrainian women is "definitely exaggerated" and not of encyclopaedic significance because "only" a quarter of them suffer it is shameful. – Joe (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I knew it! I knew, that "only" will draw attention of some moralists ("only 1/4" compared to "1/3" in the world - that was the context of that word, but no, your moral standards don't let you understand that). No, this is encyclopedia, and I don't really care about what you perceive as "shameful" here. Or is there any kind of censorship that prevents from providing these numbers? Oh, btw, about "exaggeration", take a look at these charts and this table and compare the data for Ukraine to the data for other countries. --Piramidion 13:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, you're citing wrong policy, as my primary arguments had nothing to do with this kind of stuff.--Piramidion 13:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Existing sources clearly satisfy general notability. Any NPOV issues can be addressed by editing. I see no discussion of NPOV at the article talk page or in the edit history. Gab4gab (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try to address this if the decision would be "keep". --Piramidion 14:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Secret detention centers of SBU

Secret detention centers of SBU (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

original research based on yellow journalism. There're no reliable secondary sources that could confirm existence of this kind of detention centers. Piramidion 08:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I consider the United Nations to be a reliable source, and a UN report directly states that such detention centers exist as per The Times article (underline emphasis mine):

The UN report documents hundreds of cases of illegal detention, torture and ill-treatment of detainees — both by pro-Russian armed groups and by government agencies. It draws attention to prisoner abuse and murders by pro-Russian rebel groups, but also exposes the scale and brutality of Ukraine’s government-backed torture programme for the first time, as well as the existence of five secret government detention centres.

Additional sources exist that verify the secret detention facilities, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. As such, this certainly is not original research. North America1000 10:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 13:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 13:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 13:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The release comes after Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch exposed the use of torture and secret detention by both Ukrainian authorities and pro-Russian separatists during the conflict in eastern Ukraine in a joint report “‘You Don’t Exist.’ Arbitrary Detentions, Enforced Disappearances, and Torture in Eastern Ukraine” published on 21 July.
K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable and sourced. However, there may be scope for a merge/expansion (the current article seems to focus on use of the detention centers for the Ukraine/proxy-Russia conflict) to cover detention by the SBU more broadly (perhaps in SBU) - or - alternatively - changing the title of this article.Icewhiz (talk) 10:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are a lot of exhaustive sources including UN reports. I'm going to add a few more ones to expand the article, for example The Telegraph and so on. Thanks. --Axel Staxel (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Pretty clear GNG pass from sources showing in the article. Carrite (talk) 06:37, 17 September 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. Vanamonde (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of cheetahs, jaguars and leopards

Comparison of cheetahs, jaguars and leopards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod removed by article creator. A random comparison of three species based on some superficial characteristics, but excluding other felids with the same or similar charactieristics for unclear reasons (e.g. the oncilla or serval).

This was created as a reaction against the ongoing

Fram (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Add: there's a lot of going-on below about online questions in the vein of "what's the difference between..." - but the fact is that I can unearth these for any two superficially similar animals or types of animals you care to mention - mice and shrews, whales and manatees, birds and bats, arachnids and crustaceans, snakes and legless lizards, on and on. And the answers to that can be found on Wikipedia - in articles on mice, shrews, whales, manatees, etc. An encyclopedia is not in the business of having an article addressing any question someone might ask, but rather collating the material that can be used to answer any question. This ain't Yahoo Answers. You can see the kind of long-term, universal presence a specific "what's the difference between" question needs before it qualifies for article status in Lion vs tiger, and even that is far from uncontroversial (vide two AfDs). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above comments and add: some zoo schools hand out educational material to school kids with the kind of intellectual level of this page. BhagyaMani (talk) 08:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then see what happens next. Leo1pard (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is stuff like this[1][2][3][4][5] of the school level? Leo1pard (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My above comment referred to the content of this page. These references neither justify this wiki page nor similar comparisons in an encyclopedia. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As if your references won't justify what you do elsewhere. The content in all of the references is too complicated to apply to a school level. Leo1pard (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the fact that this article is not about only 2 species, but about 3 species, and that for example, other than the link to this article, there is no information on the cheetah in the article 'Jaguar', or vice-versa, and articles like Leopard and Big cat do not have every specific detail regarding the 3 species, which can be found in scientific publications like this?[1] Leo1pard (talk) 07:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the same arguments do not apply, and this is not arbitrary, it is WP:notable, as detailed below, and the introduction has been changed since the time you commented to this, to show its notability: "The cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), jaguar (Panthera onca), and leopard (Panthera pardus) are three species of felids that are known for having yellow or tawny fur marked by spots.[6][7] Due to their physical similarities, they could get mistaken for one another, and so differences between them have been discussed.[8][6][9]" Leo1pard (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)Well, let's take a look at Porter1894. It mentions the cheetah in comparison to the leopard (p. 137) and to the tiger (p.240), but not to the jaguar. So this book clearly isn't evidence that the comparison of these three is a notable subject. Nowak 1999? Also a rather passing discussion of leopard vs. jaguar, no discussion of keopard vs. cheetah vs. jaguar (or siply cheetah vs. jaguar). Again, not evidence that this three-way comparison is a notable subject. Finally, Nowell Jackson: again, I can't find a comparison of e.g. cheetah vs. jaguar in it, never mind the threeway comparison, but I may have missed it so feel free to give the exact page number where I can find this. Otherwise, I can only conclude that of your three main sources, none have this comparison.
    Fram (talk) 11:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Can you please provide specific page numbers where they did? I see lots of pages about "habitat association", but without being more specific I can't find the page(s) where the habitat association of these three is discussed.
    Fram (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Page 3 is a table comparing all cats, not just these three. They are not even in the same category... Please provide some specific evidence from reliable sources that the comparison of these three species, as a separate group (not only two of the three, not the three in a list of all cats or all big cats, but just these three) is really a notable subject.
    Fram (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Aside from some links (1, 2, and 3) that I posted already:
  • Elaine Israel: "A LEOPARD, A JAGUAR, AND A CHEETAH?"[10][11]
  • Van Valkenburgh et al. directly compared the cheetah to the leopard and jaguar, before making comparisons to other named felids.[1] Leo1pard (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jaguar versus leopard:
Cheetah versus leopard:
And that is not all. Even WP:reliable sources talk about it: Leo1pard (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1) Porter said that the jaguar could be mistaken for a "large and thick-set panther" (leopard)[9]
2) Nowell and Jackson compared the rosettes, heads, builds and limbs of the leopard and jaguar.[6]
3) Nowak compared their physiques.[8]
On the contrary, it is a random combination of three species. You give us some mentions of two-by-two comparisons, including loads of unreliable ones. You lack reliable comparisons of these three (and only these three), using things like pinterest, youtube, and blogs to make your cause; and you ignore that the same sites you use also give other very similar comparisons you don't use. E.g. compareanimal.com (not a reliable site) has, for the jaguar alone, comparisons with black panther, with lioness and with bengal tiger. Other sites make the comparison with an ocelot[60] So your choice to compare these three and not others is a random comparison based on some superficial similarities.
Fram (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
No, because the cheetah, leopard and jaguar are considered to be
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Leo1pard (talk) 11:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Like I said above, none of these three sources make this three-way comparison, e.g. Nowak compares (very briefly) the cheetah to the leopard, and to the tiger, but not to the jaguar.
Fram (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Wrong, Nowell and Jackson did.[6] Leo1pard (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete tentative Keep This appears to be more notable than
    MOS:OXFORD. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I looked more carefully at the

WP:RS and don't see key sources that specifically compare the three species. I am agree with the other newer votes that this is a somewhat arbitrary comparison of the three. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment, I already said that aside from some links (1, 2, and 3) that I posted already, there are references that directly talk about the issue of cheetahs vs jaguars vs leopards, so this is a WP:Notable topic, not a mere cross-categorization or indiscriminate collection of information, do you need more than these?[10][11][1] Leo1pard (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scientific journals like this[1] are considered reliable, according to the rules. Firstly the complaint that I did not provide any reliable sources, after I did, and now the complaint that a scientific publication like this[1] is not reliable. Leo1pard (talk) 07:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. FenixFeather more or less described what I was going to say. As with my comments at Jaguar vs leopard , discussing differences in somewhat similar species does not indicate notability, but just something of due weight for an identification section. If anything, this is getting into a non-encyclopedic cross categorization violating
    talk) 21:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Those comments are exactly why deletion is justified. What you are describing and
talk) 15:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I said that this is not a mere cross-categorization or indiscriminate collection of information, and I have my sources for that, which are already in the article, and as stated in the article, "comparisons between them (the cheetah, jaguar and leopard) have been made.
WP:biased to any of the 3 mentioned species, but states what sources, including scientific publications like this,[1] say about them, how they compare to each other, like in physical appearance. Leo1pard (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep it and the jaguar versus leopard. Both of these articles are encyclopedic. If people need info about the similar look of three cats they can look for on Wikipedia. — Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete differences between species are already noted in each of the species articles. LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, other than the link to this article, there is nothing about jaguars in the article 'Cheetah' as of the time that you said this, or anything about cheetahs in the article 'Jaguar'. and like you would often say, the main articles should not always have specific details, and this is not some random choice of species, but meant to detail what sources like this[1] say about all 3, including details that are not in the other articles. Otherwise, do you accept that I would have put in here in the main pages? Leo1pard (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : random choice of species -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This is not a random choice of species.[10][11][1] For example, Van Valkenburgh et al., in their scientific journal, directly compared the cheetah to the jaguar and leopard, in things like the structure of the limbs. Leo1pard (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • About Van Valkenburgh, the only reliable source which touches the actual topic of the article; it can be read here (at least by me, this may depend on your country). There is one sentence comparing the three, on page 25: "Their elongate limbs, slender body, and small heads distinguish them easily from other similar sized felids, such as the leopard or jaguar." That's it. There's an image comparing the skull of the cheetah with that of the jaguar and that of the extinct giant cheetah, but there is no leopard there. There is a reference to a scientifc article comparing the pharynx (and bite force) of the lion, toger, cheetah, jaguar, and domestic cat, again evidence how such comparisons articles could be made for any combination of felids if one uses the very loose "it exists" rules of the keep proponents. If this is the best source, then it will be a very easy delete.
    Fram (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Indeed, not any more, please. Something like "The man-eating tigers of Sundarbans"[61] has one sentence fragment about the three animals: "Several of the big cats - like the leopard, jaguar, and cheetah - have handsome spots". It continues with "Lions, bobcats and cougars are a nice tawny colour", so I guess that these three will be your next article? Notability is not shown by such throwaway comments, these are not significant coverage. So not This fashion article from the NYTimes, or BBC texts about illegal fur trade.
    Fram (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Feel free to complain wherever you want, just be aware that that will also bring your actions to the attention of more editors, which might lead to a
    Fram (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment This is not OR, I have already explained that. Leo1pard (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NOTESSAY. Random collection of species (well - OK - not entirely random - it is big cats with visible rosettes/spots as adults - Lions losing their spots as adults, and tigers having stripes). Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is neither random not is it a personal essay, I have already explained that. Leo1pard (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^
    doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-804088-1.00003-4. Retrieved 2018-09-11. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help
    )
  2. ^ FASHION: On the Street; Protective Coloration For City Critters, vol. 138, The New York Times, 1989-04-23, p. 24 (N), 53 (L), retrieved 2018-09-14
  3. ^ a b c The New Wonder Book: Cyclopedia of World Knowledge. Vol. III. International Press. 1954.
  4. ^
    ISBN 0-7607-7493-5
    .
  5. ^ a b BBC wildlife, The BBC, 1991
  6. ^
    ISBN 2-8317-0045-0
    .
  7. ISSN 1027-2992
    .
  8. ^
    ISBN 978-0-8018-5789-8
    .
  9. ^ a b c John Hampden Porter (1894). Wild beasts; a study of the characters and habits of the elephant, lion, leopard, panther, jaguar, tiger, puma, wolf, and grizzly bear. pp. 76–256. Retrieved 2014-01-19.
  10. ^
    World Almanac Books, distributed by St. Martin's Press
    .
  11. ^
    World Almanac Books, distributed by St. Martin's Press
    .
  12. ISBN 1-4339-4352-2
    .
  13. ISBN 0-6184-9490-1
    .
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. clear consensus; nothing worth merging,. DGG ( talk ) 08:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theologian of Christianity

Theologian of Christianity (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)

Incoherent personal essay Rathfelder (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We already have
    WP:NOT. Bradv 22:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@
Philosopher. I agree the article is weak. The proper name is Christian Theologian rather than the current mouthful. The problem I see is not lack of notability, but the lack of good secondary sources as a foundation for the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. North America1000 10:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crosfield Electronics

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing

Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Rich Farmbrough with the following rationale "No problem, this is a notable company.". Sadly, Rich hasn't added any new source to justify his claim. All I see in Google Books and such are passing mentions, and few business-as-usual press-releases style notes on acquisitions or such. This sub-stub is still unreferenced and fails to prove its notability, aside of Rich's assertions. We need sources, I am afraid. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:59, 11 September 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.

Note: The de-prod was here with a completely different edit summary. There is an accompanying section on the talk page, which supports notability. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Novatore (hip-hop)

Novatore (hip-hop) (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 rapper, sources found are mostly blogs and press releases that describe him as a newcomer. Fails the

WP:MBIO. The editor whose username is Z0 06:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability found in search, sources appear to be almost exclusively from a minor blog website, fails
    WP:MUSICBIO. Hzh (talk) 12:03, 12 September 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. Vanamonde (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Saleem Khan

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

Subject lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 05:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:48, 11 September 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. Vanamonde (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Gaspar

Kristin Gaspar (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 looks like a case of a person not meeting

talk) 03:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:44, 11 September 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Nuttery Entertainment

The Nuttery Entertainment (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:ORGIND scope_creep (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Re
    WP:ORGIND) It seems like the page was originated by the company or someone close to it, messy and promotional. I have removed all extraneous/'promotional' text, and have rewritten/restructured most of the page to keep it in line with similar company pages. Links and sources added where needed as well. KnowNaughtNinja (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

References

  1. ^ https://www.allabolag.se/5590675269/nuttery-entertainment-ab
  2. ^ https://variety.com/2017/digital/news/classic-video-game-galaga-developed-animated-series-1202503087/
  3. ^ https://deadline.com/2018/08/galaga-chronicles-arcade-game-saga-adds-roberto-orci-shadowmachine-1202451561/
  • Thanks for the heads up. Was trying to respond to the two fails separately. Went ahead and merged the two. KnowNaughtNinja (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:GNG. Per KnowNaughyNinjas rationaleBabbaQ (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:17, 11 September 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie would have won

Bernie would have won (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 de-prod'd. Fails

WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, since when did memes pass
    WP:GNG despite the fact they didn't significantly trend or get significant media coverage (and this meme didn't really pass either, as articles "on the meme" are actually on the idea, and a Google search didn't reveal it ever trended enough)?Kirbanzo (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

"After Trump’s election, “Bernie would have won” became a wistful meme, a sign of things that should have been.

— Newsweek

In the post-election climate of shock and chagrin, the phrase “Bernie would have won” caught on among young democratic socialists and other diehard Sanders supporters, and became a meme on social media. It’s a taunting counterfactual, typically tossed off with a sense of melancholy and bit of righteousness—and, often, with the aim of needling centrist Democrats who didn’t get Sanders’s appeal."

— The New Yorker

Trackinfo (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Someecards

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing

Wikipedia:Notability (websites) requirements. Coverage is in passing, no in-depth review; pretty much the best source is this short write up in a Wired blog, and it is not impressive, nor that reliable (blog, after all). We are not a directory of random pages, and this one doesn't seem that notable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes
    WP:WEB, especially given NYT coverage above. Bradv 13:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Hope Rugo

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

Does not satisfy either

general notability
. Being director of a clinical trial program is not in itself notable. Google search shows that she exists and has given interviews, but that is not enough.

An admin moved this page to draft as undersourced, but author has moved it back, so it needs to go to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure what your definition of needs is, but I think in this case it means that is what you want to do. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 01:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 01:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 13:20, 11 September 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. Vanamonde (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FitDay

FitDay (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)

One of many such trivial appplications; no evidence of notability for this particular one. DGG ( talk ) 08:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. One or two brief reviews, but not in-depth. If this was a video game, it would fail the detailed video game referencing standards. As it is, it just fails
    WP:GNG, unless someone can dig out a better review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article was started, and most of the contents written, in 2009 by an undeclared paid editor, banned in 2010 even under the much less strict rules at the time. The editor worked almost exclusively on the various products of Internet Brands. Most of the individual article they started then have since been deservedly deleted. That added factor, which I had not noticed when I made then nomination here ,should be enough to make even clearer the need for deletion DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 15 September 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fundisha

Fundisha (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 songstress appears to fail

WP:MUSICBIO. She has only appeared as a featured singer on a handful of singles; and none of her own albums or singles charted. Contested prod. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 15:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 15:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose named singer on sleeve of two hit singles, we have articles on 1-hit-wonders, seems churlish to erase a 2-hit wonder. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • She had hits? Then add them to the article with sources, please. (BTW, !votes in deletion discussions are "keep" and "delete", not "support" and "oppose".) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 20:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:13, 11 September 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_September_11&oldid=1142615085"