Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 4

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. – bradv🍁 21:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rohema Miah

Rohema Miah (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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the claims to notability are somewhat nebulous. Noe of the sourcing in the article are
  reliable sources. My own search turns up only passing mentions. -- Whpq (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2019 (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 Complete Paris Concerts

The Complete Paris Concerts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable, too few sources. Another unofficial release, so of course there aren't many sources or links to the article. How can it be The Complete Paris Concerts when there are only seven songs? Coltrane played in Paris more than that. Vmavanti (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 28 July 2019 (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. czar 00:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shooter (2000 film)

Shooter (2000 film) (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 article about a short film with no claim of notability that would pass

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No significant coverage. Fails
  WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - Completely unsourced in the article and I cannot find any coverage about it that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2019 (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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Faizan Khan (Indian actor)

Faizan Khan (Indian actor) (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)

Putting it here as the references don't show notability. I don't want to prod it and have to come back here after someone de prods it Josalm64rc (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - while he is in the two films (one of which has an article, but both of which are probably notable), his role is distinctly small in both and doesn't reach the level of a "significant" role. As such,
  WP:NFILM is not satisfied. No obvious single redirect target. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG upcoming not ntoable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete without prejudice against recreation if the subject has more roles and attains notability. Until then, this appears to fail
  WP:NACTOR (at least for now) --DannyS712 (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2019 (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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hayat Mahmud Rahat

Hayat Mahmud Rahat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet criteria of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, Who is he? He is create short film just for youtube. And those reference doesn’t prove that he is notable. This article should be delete on
  A7. ChotoBhai (talk
  ) 3:10, 05 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. . He is a Bangladeshi Director. He had made many of short drama film which has on aired at national television channel. He also won an international award from We Art Water Film Festival[1]^[2][3]. — Sajidulislampathan (talk) 12:45, 05 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. — Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 11:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a clearly non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Anyone can call themselves a Director, this does not mean they are notable or even if they were directors that is not evidence of notability. His film being aired on tv adds nothing to being notable and an award from Art Water Film Festival means nothing. There are lots of festival and lots of award in the world; and only a few are notable. P.S. it is considered good form to mention on your vote that you created the article.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable film director, fail
  (T) 06:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - per nom. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Balbir Singh Jakhar

Balbir Singh Jakhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested prod. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it fails
  WP:NPOL Never won any election, never held a major public post. Nothing to prove notability.--DBigXrayᗙ 19:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles for being presidents of local bar associations, or for being candidates in elections they did not win, so nothing here demonstrates that he passes
  WP:BLP1E rather than a person who has earned permanent coverage in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete unelected candidates are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails
  WP:NPOL not elected.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anuel Modebe

Anuel Modebe (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 autobiography. Two of the cited sources are "sponsored content," and brief mentions anyway. Some recognition for nomination for best photographer by the

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable enough and autobio on top of that. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia has very stringent rules against autobiographies. They have kept us from being flooded with even more articles on non-notable people than we are currently.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Full of useless namedropping typical of promotional (auto)biographies. The sources are not only carrying sponsored content they are unreliable too. A draft of this was rightly rejected at AfC (see Draft:Anuel Modebe) for notability concerns, but the author seems unreceptive to anything but to have their autobiography on Wikipedia. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and
  none of which make him notable. If we allow these now, we'll lose our not-for-profit status and revert to that of a private foundation. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2019 (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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samad Dawood

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

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

Not notable in its own right, notability can't be inherited, which he can't inherit from his father or his family. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - individual doesn't meet GNG - there are loads of mentions, and quotes, but the only proper coverage is in primary/non-independent coverage. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment When nominating an article for Deletion, I don't see the need for the nominator to be making personal sweeping statements about the subject of the article. Does the subject article itself say that Samad Dawood expects to inherit notability from his father or family? Is this You Tube or an encyclopedia? MelvinHans (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator didn't say that Samad himself expected to inherit notability (I mean, he presumably didn't make the article, nor knows about this deletion discussion), but ruling out ways people frequently think notability is established is a beneficial exercise, having seen thoughts of that type in prior discussions. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's focus on the factual part of the article and not give the impression of being personal here on this Discussion Forum. MelvinHans (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Italy infamously appoints "honorary consuls" in
  notable in any way. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2019 (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.

Infomedia

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

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

non-notable company, all sources are the company or likely press-releases. Page is just an "about us" and I couldn't find any claim to notability elsewhere.

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 16:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 16:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 16:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete: No significant coverage per
  WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2019 (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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Wojtkowiak

Bernard Wojtkowiak (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)

Bernard Wojtkowiak served in the Erie County legislature (an office that doesn't pass

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging @Path slopu: and @Otr500: who took part in the first AfD. GPL93 (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Stating that as the closing admin from the previous discussion that I am OK with a re-do for the reasons stated on my talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There just is not any
  dictionary entry. Otr500 (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. In Jo-Jo's defense, "merge" was definitely the consensus of the people who actually bothered to participate the first time — but it was a silly preference to express, because (a) the county's article only lists the current councillors and doesn't have a space to list everybody who ever served on it in the past, and (b) this doesn't even attempt to demonstrate a reason why Wojtkowiak might be a special case who still warranted being singled out for special mention despite the article otherwise lacking a comprehensive list of everybody who ever served on it in the past. Bearcat (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing here is even worth merging.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Johnpacklambert. We make mistakes sometimes. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2019 (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.

Rosemary Crossley

Rosemary Crossley (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 of page has requested deletion. Not sure if it's worth keeping the page up, as subject isn't extremely notable based on sources. Request: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rosemary_Crossley&diff=prev&oldid=909288970

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I note that deletion would remove content about Anne McDonald, merged to this article 2 weeks ago. Does the nominator have a suggestion about that content? I suspect that both Rosemary Crossley and Anne McDonald could be shown to be notable, with sustained significant coverage in Australian media, none of which is currently in this article. I am trying to figure out why the articles were merged, and so far all I can find is a comment on 11 July 2019 on Talk:Rosemary Crossley saying "Most of the sources on Anne McDonald are about her dealings with Rosemary." That seems to be it. Why on earth not improve the sources??? RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would like to have a go at editing this article and adding sources. I know that the subject of the article should not edit it, but I have to say that I agree that the lede here is inappropriate for a BLP. Facilitated communication is hyperlinked in the very first clause, so we probably don't need the explanation which follows in the same sentence, and certainly don't need the four sentences about it in the second para of the lede. They do not relate to the subject of the article, and do not summarise the contents of the article, as a lede is supposed to do. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have started trying to edit this article. Some editors seem to be more concerned to say as many times as possible that facilitated communication is discredited than to write an objective BLP. The current edit to the lede has a second para that duplicates what is in the first. Why? I am starting to agree with the subject of the article that the only thing to do is to delete the article, even though the subject is definitely notable. However, I will try to continue adding actual information about the subject's career - which include disputed claims from very early on. I would rather like to move this to draft space, if other editors feel the need to keep adding in every paragraph that facilitated communication is discredited. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you for the sensible comments. As Rebecca Green says, both McDonald's page and mine have been used as platforms to criticise FC. This is ironic, as FC is not even an Australian term. The Australian term is FCT, facilitated communication training, referring to hands-on therapy to teach people without functional speech to use communication aids. That is also the title of my text book, published in 1994. All of this is well after Anne McDonald fought her way out of a state institution 1n 1979, and when the book and film, both called 'Annie's Coming Out' appeared in 1980 and 1984 respectively, when neither term existed.

Having said that, the recent removal of Wikipedia pages about one-time participants in FCT teaching programs who've gone on to type independently, makes it hard to even suggest that there are 2 sides to this discussion.

A general difficulty is Wikipedia's approach to evidence, which appears to exclude primary sources, such as court judgements and medical records, and preferences secondary sources such as refereed journal articles, often with a significant selection bias. The single editor who on his/her own decided to meld McDonald's page and mine asked me, in relation to McDonald's undeniable growth of 18 inches (45 cm) after the age of 18, was there a news report that confirmed that this was unusual? A news report! There's a compelling series of broadsheet front page photos of Anne, starting with a picture of a nurse carrying Anne out of the Supreme Court like a babe in arms in May 1979, when she was 18 years old and weighed less than 30 pounds (13.5 kg), clearly showing her increase in height from 105 cm to 150 cm, as her weight increased to 50kg. Problem is there's no backgound site on which such photos or scans of medical records can be posted to inform editors. Regardless of whether McDonald's growth is considered worth mentioning, the reasons given for excluding it do point up evidentiary issues.

Those are also shown in the inaccurate insertion about the Stubblefield case. Previous efforts to draw attention to the verdict of the Court of Appeal to correct the record have been ignored, because it isn't evidence.

By all means include negative comments such as 'Crossley's more recent work has been controversial, as it has been associated with the introduction of FC in the US, which has been criticised in journal articles (refs) and has resulted in some professional associations passing negative resolutions (refs).'

Frankly,given that there seems to be no way of preventing frequent inaccurate additions and negative slurs on McDonald and myself, I would prefer that both pages are removed. It is distressing to see McDonald's reputation trashed, and I haven't got the time to monitor both pages and line up someone to correct them, as I'm not allowed to edit either, because of conflict of interest issues - never raised about the critics. Amdc538 (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk) 22:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Ylevental, could you point me to a WP policy that says "Wikipedia person pages aren't about their lives, they are about what they are notable for", please? My understanding was that biographies, whether of living or deceased people, should include as much about the person's life, education, career and achievements for which they are notable as can be reliably referenced to independent sources, and in the case of living people, is compatible with privacy concerns (eg regarding date of birth). RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 13:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Ylevental, Crossley's career since 1975 has been focused on disabled people with communication difficulties. That is what 3 of her books are about, that is what she received the AM for - and that is what the controversy is about. Therefore, a biography of Crossley should set out as much as is known about her education, career and achievements as can be reliably referenced to independent sources. That is her life. I will continue to work on the Career sections of this article, adding information from reliable, independent, secondary sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How much of this work is unrelated to facilitated communication? The article makes is seem like almost all of her work is with non-verbal people. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiman2718: I am not sure what you are asking? Yes, she has worked for over 40 years with people with communication difficulties. Some continued to be non-verbal, some regained the ability to speak, etc. There is significant, sustained coverage which gives details of her work and her advocacy, and others' views and reactions to that. Ylevental suggested that the article should not be about her life, but about what she is notable for - and I replied that what she is notable for is the work she has done during her life. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, she is notable for the work she has done in her life related to FC and people who use it. Unless I am mistaken, she is not notable for any other work? --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiman2718: I still don't understand what you are asking, sorry. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My question could not have been more clear. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiman2718: Please would you do me the courtesy to ping me when you reply? Perhaps I should have said that I don't understand why you keep asking what Crossley is or is not notable for, nor why it is relevant what she is notable for - she is notable. I believe that I provided the information before you asked the question. Crossley is notable for the work she has done with disabled people with communication difficulties. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: Yes. And all of that work is with FC users. She is notable for FC. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:BLPFRINGE, we don't just say "She is notable for FC, and this is what is wrong with FC". We are required to "write a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject." That is what I have started trying to do. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@RebeccaGreen: The psuedoscientific nature of FC changes the whole story. Failing to convey to the reader what is really going on is non-neutral. Pseudoscience guidelines make that extremely clear. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiman2718: Did you see that I referred to and quoted from Wikipedia:Fringe theories? That is the relevant policy, so what I quoted applies. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk) 18:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@RebeccaGreen: It is not degenerating to the subject to give due weight to science. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiman2718: @Ylevental: I am going to follow the policy and write "a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject." If there are sources which specifically refer to Crossley or her work as being discredited and/or unethical, then I will include them. We should not say that if she specifically has not been discredited. The Andrew Wakefield is not an exact comparison, as Crossley is not a doctor, has not been struck off a medical register, and I have not seen any evidence that she has written fraudulent research papers. I have already found sources from quite early on that disagree with and challenge her, and I expect that I will find more as I search. They should and will be included. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: Facilitated communication is discredited per Wikipedia's consensus. Sources that are unskeptical of FC are pushing fringe. In a balanced article, the appropriate amount of weight to give to the pro-FC narrative is zero. I haven't seen any sources accusing her of fraud. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk) 18:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:BLPFRINGE, I suggest that you initiate a discussion to change it. Also, I have not said anything about promotional sources - I have stated several times that the sources I have found include statements from people who disagree or challenge her. Please stop arguing needlessly! RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:BLPFRINGE. See Ylevental's comment about false balance. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

"Hello, this is my Wikipedia page Ylevental (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

No more agenda based editing or hiding. I get it. Ylevental (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)"

On July 3 she/he promised 'no more agenda based editing or hiding'. This was after she'd been instrumental in removing the pagers of people, most of whom were women) who had started using communication aids with facilitation but now do so independently. Hiding the evidence, ableist attitudes and terminology seem to be a large part of Wikipedia's 'consensus. Wikiman2718, you joined up about 3 months ago. Please tell us how that 'consensus' was reached, and how wiping out the achievements of people with disabilities and refusing to recognise the extreme suffering to which many have been subject, as Anne McDonald was, as worthy of notice, is Wikipedia's policy.

BTW I'm busy working on a low-cost eye-gaze communication system for people who can't use their hands, costing less than a fifth of commercial 'disability-priced' systems. The free 'recipe' will be available at Australia's national AAC conference at the end of August, so interested therapists, teachers and family members can set up their own. The accompanying free multiple-choice activities I have written are now being used on iPads to allow people who can't talk and who can only choose clearly independently between 2-4 items to demonstrate advanced literacy and numeracy skills. Not just people with autism - people with ABD, CP, DS etc - are demonstrating skills Wikipedia doesn't want to recognise.

I'm too busy to keep on. Rebecca Green, thank you for your common sense and concern.Amdc538 (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk) 22:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Ylevental, that is a strong accusation, some editors may see it as typical of a wikibully to cast such aspersions on an editor of good standing. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ps. and to "scare off" some editors from partaking in this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:COI, I know no more of Crossley than I do of any other subject which I find through AfD, PROD or declined AfC, and then research and attempt to improve the articles. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@

talk) 15:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

and the allegations continue.... personally, i'm goint to have

a nice cup of Assam. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment, have been
  bold and undone the redirect/merge of Anne McDonald as i believe she is notable enough to have a standalone article, please see that talkpage.Coolabahapple (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Every mention of Anne McDonald involves Rosemary Crossley

talk) 15:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Subject is notable and passes
  WP:NEUTRAL editing. Netherzone (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. the individual is notable, not just borderline notable , so there is no basis in policy for deleting the article. . The fairness of the article can be discussed elsewhere, but as I understand WP:BLPFRINGE, we do state the general opinion is that FC is not generally accepted, but we we do not over-emphasise this. When we include a bio of a person, we discuss their life and their work. The work is almost always an integral part of the reason for their notability and we cannot avoid it. The discussion of the various opinions on FC in general belongs in the subject article, but the discussion of the specific work the individual has done is relevant in the bio. Eben so, it needs to be controlled--we writebios to give information about people, not to judge them. It's the reader who will be doing the judging. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clearly notable subject, agree with DGG and "AFD is not cleanup". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the references present in the article show that the subject meets
  WP:NFRINGE. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2019 (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.

Jack Bin (Demule Wilondja)

Jack Bin (Demule Wilondja) (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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Willbb234 (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Willbb234 (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the sources appear to be independent or reliable. Speedy Delete Meets Criteria given that this is an attempt to evade the
  WP:SALTing of the article Jack Bin. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete per g5, meatpuppetry, sock puppetry, g11, a7...you name it. Praxidicae (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but not speedy. Sources in the article don't show notability, a good faith google search isn't turning up any that do. The SALTing of Jack Bin is for repeated recreation of a speediable article -- I'd rather have the AfD result that lets us easily use G4 on future versions under any title.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrictramp, Jack Bin has already been SALTed since February. These are multiple attempts to evade this both in draft and in mainspace. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, editor Erinsivek appears to have impersonated an American teacher of international students (news video and article on Sivek [1]) who has nothing to do with Computer programming languages (excessive list of boxes on userpage [2]) and ignored attempts to develop this to a meaningful article and placed this version in mainspace. Above reference was included in Jack Bin's article but does not mention Jack Bin at all. Rest of article is poorly sourced and not by mainstream newspapers but blogs and personal social media. There are piles of Jack Bin drafts that are duplicates or variants thereof that I'm pushing for CSD:
  • Draft:Jack Bin, created 3 August by Erinsivek
  • Draft:Jack Bin (demule wilondja), created 30 July by CrownprinceJbJK, edited and resubmitted by Erinsivek
  • Draft:Muunga Wilondja, created 9 February by Jackbinvevo
  • Draft:Jack Bin (Muunga Wilondja) , created 13 July by Ghuran babe
  • Draft:Jack Bin - Kind Of Love, created 7 July by Michaelle23
  • Draft:Jack Bin (Musician) , created 7 July by Michaelle23

This is likely to be self-promotional as Bin moved to the US and attends MPS [3] which is Milwaukee Public Schools which is where Erin's name is showing up. See https://www.reverbnation.com/jackbin AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The editor also swiped several barnstars and editor of the week icons from other pages. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: bloody good detective work. Willbb234 (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

they have also copied Robert McClenon’s userpage even down to the barnstars. Praxidicae (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: Excellent job, should we tie all these accounts together with an SPI? Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:GPL93 - Yes, an SPI is in order. User:AngusWOOFUser:Praxidicae - Which sock has plagiarized my user page? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon that would be Erinsivek [4]. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see it was blanked. I will submit a diff if this goes to

WP:ANI. But most of my barnstars have apparently been lost. I will recover them sometime, but not today. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete- The MFD of the draft should be sufficient to qualify as a
  suckpoppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2019 (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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Color Pink

Color Pink (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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Willbb234 (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Willbb234 (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable musical unit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable collaboration with just one non-charting single; does not satisfy notability criteria. PC78 (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2019 (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.

Kevin Horton

Kevin Horton (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 be notable. There is one rather detailed Vice profile of Horton, but other than that all media coverage in the article and all I could find is trivial passing mentions. Huon (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Vice [5] gave him significant coverage, as did The Verge [6], mentioning his accomplishments and how he did it, and talking to him as well. Plenty of brief mentions also such as Gamespot [7] "Kevin Horton, who is widely regarded as an expert when it comes to recreating classic gaming hardware on FPGA chips." Dream Focus 00:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets
  Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - I'm not sure the Verge is quite in depth enough on Horton himself to qualify, but Vice and the book both are to show GNG is met. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2019 (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. – bradv🍁 22:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Lewis (Royal Navy officer)

Doug Lewis (Royal Navy officer) (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've been looking into Douglas Lewis and I am struggling to see why he is notable. The article appears to have been written as an expansion of his CV, with no useful references (apart from the one I just added!) His rank doesn't qualify him for

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ツStacey (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just a point about the CBE - Order_of_the_British_Empire#Composition states that "The Order is limited to 300 Knights and Dames Grand Cross, 845 Knights and Dames Commander, and 8,960 Commanders". That is in total, so the number of new CBEs created in any one year is limited by the number of members still alive. It's the lower ranks where around 2000 ("no more than 858 Officers and 1,464 Members") are appointed every year.

As for whether a CBE meets ANYBIO - I have sometimes seen it argued in AfDs that it does, and sometimes that it doesn't. KBE and above seem unequivocal, but CBE not so much. I'll see what I can find - there must be at least minimal coverage of the award. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. I added the reference with link to the Newspaper Supplement which listed the CBE but that was all I could find. I really intended to improve this article but my limited results regarding this chap have made it impossible for me to do so. Please let me know if you find anything; I'm willing to work on rest of article if you do. ツStacey (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Phil Bridger (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. Commodore does indeed qualify under
  WP:ANYBIO #1. Only 100-200 are awarded every year, not 2,000 (OBEs and MBEs, on the other hand, do not meet ANYBIO). I have never seen a CBE deleted at AfD, and quite a few have been nominated by people who are clearly unaware of the honour's significance. So he qualifies twice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - not notable for military achievements (unless there's more to add), not promoted to 2-star (rear admiral) so fails
  WP:SOLDIER; commodores are not generals/admirals, they're one-stars, and do not qualify as flag officers. If he had done something notable in combat as a 1-star, my vote would be keep; but his sole one-star appointment seems to have been at Greenwich. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • So you are going down the ridiculous route that his rank doesn't include "admiral" so he doesn't qualify, although an American officer of the same rank (and same authority and status) would? Frankly, words fail me. As I've said, we always have considered that Commonwealth "one-star" officers do qualify under
    WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Lets assume commodore (as rear admiral) inches past
      WP:SIGCOV online - instead we see close to nothing in terms of secondary sources available online.Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • He retired from the Royal Navy, his main career, in 1998. 1998 is hardly comparable to 2019 as far as internet presence is concerned. I think presumed notability is fine for someone who retired 21 years ago. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I should also point out that someone is not notable because they were awarded the CBE; they are awarded the CBE because they are already notable on a national level! It seems bizarre that some editors consider that Wikipedia's notability standards should be higher than those of the United Kingdom, which only awards 100-200 CBEs a year to a population of well over 60 million. Mind you, if he was a sportsman (one appearance for a national team required), a pop singer or a reality TV star (endless reams of coverage by fans on the internet) his notability requirements would be much lower. Such, apparently, is the drift towards pop culture on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • In response to Necrothesp, my definition of a general/flag officer is a two-star, not a one-star. One-stars aren't generals (or admirals); they're brigadiers/commodores etc. Combat service might move him up; the CBE might move him up; but not being a one-star. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're missing my point. In other countries (e.g. United States), a one-star officer is a flag officer or general officer (and is called a rear admiral or brigadier general). Are you saying that Commonwealth officers would not meet
              WP:SOLDIER? Which would go against many previous decisions at AfD and what SOLDIER actually says. Also note that Commonwealth air commodores are considered to be air officers (i.e. flag/general officers), although they hold exactly the same rank as commodores and brigadiers. These claims are all completely illogical and inconsistent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • Hi Necrothesp. I'm saying that in my 30-year understanding of Commonwealth armed forces, one-star officers are simply not generals or admirals; they are officers under that rank. They do not meet my definition of what a general or an admiral is. If you like, no, I do not consider they meet SOLDIER in terms of being general/flag officers: they are *not* "considered to be general, flag, or air officers." Our article for Air officer says that commodores and brigadiers are not considered general/flag officers, which would stem from the common Commonwealth understanding which in some way I picked up 20+ years ago. (I have noted that that article says air commodores are air officers.) Usual clashing definitions. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • I know that in the Commonwealth brigadiers and commodores are not generals and admirals. I've said that. However, they are equal to generals and admirals in armed forces in which they are called brigadier generals and rear admirals (or something similar). And you could not possibly argue that the latter are not general or flag officers, since they clearly are. So what you're basically saying is that Commonwealth officers (apart from air commodores, even though they hold the same rank) should not be considered notable because of their title, whereas their direct equivalents in other countries should be considered notable because of theirs. Because a word is omitted from their rank they're not notable! That is utterly bonkers! And we have found commodores and brigadiers to meet
                  WP:SOLDIER many times. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
                  ]
                  • Hi Necrothesp. No, as far as I'm concerned you have to make 2-star to be a general/flag officer, worldwide, whatever other countries say. I do hail from the Commonwealth, after all. Commodores and brigadiers only make WP:SOLDIER, as far as I'm concerned, on combat or other notable achievements, not rank alone. That will remain the underlying reason why I vote as I do. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the question of
  WP:SOLDIER #2 is an interesting one. British commodores aren't flag officers (under the British set-up), but their NATO positioning does mark them equivalent in rank to officers in other armed forces/navies that are. I'm inclined to agree with Necrothesp that since it is the level of authority that underpins #2, not specific phrasing, the criterion is satisfied. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. There may be more coverage of the article subject which would establish notability. I am at the moment looking into that matter. In the meantime, it is worth pointing out that
  WP:ANYBIO are guidelines to indicate when a subject is "likely" to be notable enough to invest the time in writing an article about the subject, rather than if the criteria are met that establishes notability, and both guidelines do say this. The criteria that is needed is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If we can establish such coverage, then Doug Lewis would be notable enough under our criteria. Has anyone done a search for mentions in books and so forth? SilkTork (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. After conducting a search I cannot find an independent reliable source that mentions the subject other than as a listing. When looking into the history of the article I note that it was created by
  WP:SPA, points to this being a promotional article to support the International Social Service article. SilkTork (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Borderline SOLDIER pass (either way) - however SOLDIER merely creates a presumption of GNG. Sources in the article are not in-depth secondary reliable sources. Searching for "Doug Lewis", "Douglas Lewis", "Douglas Raymond Snell Lewis" (+some D. Lewis, D.R. Lewis, D.R.S Lewis) (with CBE, Royal Navy, and other stuff) did not lead me to much. Lewis could plausibly be notable (rank, CBE, charity work, etc.) - however given that this is a biography in English, in the digital age - some reasonable sources should be available and we do not have to rely on presumed notability. Absent any reasonable secondary source covering him in depth - this is a delete. Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't consider the CBE to be a qualifying award. "Cecilia Mathieson" a CBE from the 2019 New Year Honours has nothing online other than mentions of getting the award. So we shouldn't assume that there would be offline significant coverage for CBEs from before the internet era. I'm not sure that he meets the military guideline. Maybe if he were higher ranking or there was likely to be offline coverage I would support keeping. Blumpf (talk) 05:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you think these people are awarded the CBE, only 100-200 of which are awarded every year in a country of over 67 million people, despite not being notable? Good grief... As I said, maybe they should kick a ball around a field for a couple of hours. That would make them notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have an even rarer award! It can only be held and given out by one person and that person is me. Should I get an article now? What if I get mentioned one time in the newspaper?

It looks like "thank you for your service" award that is artificially limited not because it is very difficult to get, but because there can only be a certain number of living recipients. There are probably thousands each year who are just as deserving of the award but weren't lucky enough. I don't care how special the British government thinks it is or how much the Queen appreciates them if there is zero significant coverage.

There's something called the "sports" and "entertainment" section in most newspapers. So if some singer or ball kicker gets covered there multiple times I'm not going to try to delete it even if I don't think they deserve it. But for CBE holders it's not uncommon to only get one sentence in a list. And the one game sports guideline is insanely retarded it should be "have played in at least two seasons". Blumpf (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:SOLDIER. There are numerous other 1 star bio's on WP Gbawden (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - while CBE and a single star does not make one automatically notable, in this case, he appears to make the grade. Bearian (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2019 (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.

]

Packet Clearing House

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

Packet Clearing House (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 internet buisness Collaboratio (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I suspect nom is right with regard to notability, but it's a shame, because I suspect they should be. As well as being an absolutely critical non-profit, they generate hoards of quotes and summaries of cyber issues and whenever a DNS issue is in the news. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - PCH's 2018 audited financials show a budget of $249,918,249, which puts it in the fifty largest NGOs in the United States, out of a total of more than 1.5 million. That's 99.997th percentile, and larger than, for instance, the
  Verizon. More than 400 of the world's top-level domains operate on PCH's infrastructure, including those of more than 120 nations; no other DNS operator even approaches those numbers. PCH operates the only FIPS 140-2 Level 4 DNSSEC signing platform in the world other than that of the DNS root itself, and performs the DNSSEC key management for 51 countries. The donors who support PCH's operations include more than six hundred Internet companies and forty national governments. The criteria for notability of non-profit organizations are: "The scope of their activities is national or international in scale and the organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization." PCH provides services in more than 100 countries, and has been the subject of press coverage thousands of times over the past 25 years. Thus, it clearly meets the criteria of notability. Perhaps this is less a question of notability than of the proposer's familiarity with PCH's field of operation? So, I object to the proposed deletion. Bill Woodcock
  14:25, 5 August 2019 (PDT)

  the fact that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion". -- Collaboratio (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC) — Collaboratio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply

  ]

  Collaboratio, yes, as I make abundantly clear, I am PCH's executive director. Which has no bearing whatsoever on the facts of the matter. Do you dispute the facts, and are you prepared to address them? -- Bwoodcock 16:16, 7 August 2019 (PDT)

• Keep - PCH is notable. The
  canvassed
  to this discussion.
• Keep - PCH is notable. I humbly request you to remove it from the proposed deletion list. PCH has helped establish many Internet Exchanges across the world by providing operational support, equipments, trainings, etc. PCH also provides resourceful data for many researchers — 202.63.243.83 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep - I stronly disagree with the idea that PCH is not a notable organisation and should be deleted. PCH operates infrastrcuture and services that make the Internet more secure, reliable and robust for everyone, but particularly in underserved areas with large populations. Thanks to PCH's work in partnership with IXP operators in Africa, Latin-America and Asia-Pacific, Internet users can experience a better Internet. As a non-profit, it does not devote resources to marketing and self-promotion which would certainly help in defining the organisation notable. Elgaelo (talk) 10:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC) — Elgaelo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment - @
  Ignore All Rules justification, but Collaboratio is correct to point out your links to make sure you comply with PaidCOI obligations - doing so is not cause to snap back. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Nosebagbear, well, do facts matter, or does only who states the facts matter? Again, there are two criteria: "The scope of their activities is national or international in scale and the organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization." Is there anyone who's seriously suggesting that operations in more than a hundred countries is not "national or international in scale," or that the New York Times, Reuters, the Christian Science Monitor, WIRED, Dan Rather, The Washington Post, NPR, Newsweek, Network World, CNet, the CBC, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Moscow Times, ACM Queue, Politico, the Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, the Straits Times, ZDNet, AsiaOne, Computerworld, Mainichi Daily News, Politica Digital, InformationWeek, ITWire, IEEE Spectrum, Businessweek, Pew, Heise, and France24 are not independent of PCH? If not, can we consider the matter settled again? Every minute spent feeding trolls is a minute we're not serving our constituents. -- Bwoodcock 22:17, 7 August 2019 (PDT)

@

Sig Cov is satisfied then the AfD is functionally done right now, which would be great. I couldn't find any cases in sources like these where Significant Coverage and independent (so no press releases (not that PCH does many of them) and nothing from a PCH staff member (including their interview answers). And no participant here is a troll, so calling them such is not particularly helpful. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Nosebagbear, here is ZDNet coverage of the opening of our first DNSSEC key management facility in 2011, and New York Times coverage of the acceleration of our root-server infrastructure defense campaign in 2012. Bwoodcock 08:52, 8 August 2019 (PDT)

Bwoodcock - the first one just links me to a list of most recent articles that don't seem to immediately relate to PCH. The 2nd one is a broken link, but I could use it to find your desired link here. Only a bit of the content directly applies to PCH as vs a general consideration of the threat, but I'm already leaning to be pro-retention - if the zdnet source is better I'd be happy enough to be Keep. I've not been able to find the specific article by targeted google searches Nosebagbear (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nosebagbear, fixed links, sorry, too many different wiki syntaxes floating around in my head. With the anonymous attack, the structure of the press coverage was, itself, a significant portion of the deterrence effort. The goal wasn't to gain publicity for PCH, it was to deter the attack. Bwoodcock 09:57, 8 August 2019 (PDT)

• Keep. There are available sources that support this article's notability.

Packet Clearing House has vital internet properties some of which are critical net infrastructure:

• http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190327_guadeloupe_moves_to_set_up_internet_exchange_point/
• https://www.govtech.com/network/Montgomery-Launches-First-City-Owned-Internet-Exchange-Point-in-Alabama.html
• https://dyn.com/blog/does-establishing-more-ixps-keep-data-local-brazil-and-mexico-might-offer-answers/
• https://technical.ly/baltimore/2019/05/29/network-engineer-devin-weaver-brought-an-internet-exchange-point-to-baltimore-data-baltix/
• https://honestversion.com/global-data-center-blade-server-market-by-2023-type-segment-industry-segment-market-dynamics-market-size-and-types/
• https://www.capacitymedia.com/articles/3822977/packet-clearing-house-launches-two-pops-at-interxion-marseille-and-madrid

Packet Clearing House is an expert in DNS matters in the news :

• https://www.engadget.com/2019/02/28/russia-putin-internet-kill-switch-cybersecurity/
• https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/us/finding-who-and-where-within-the-sports-cyber-betting-universe.html
• https://www.wired.com/2011/02/egypt-off-switch/
• https://www.wired.com/2008/08/civilge-the-geo/
• https://mybroadband.co.za/news/cloud-hosting/294296-dns-flag-day-telkom-website-does-not-support-latest-security-features.html
• https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dns-firewalls-could-reduce-33-140000777.html
• https://www.foxnews.com/tech/how-to-protect-your-router-from-russian-hackers
• https://datacenterfrontier.com/clearing-the-confusion-defining-the-layers-of-edge-computing/
• https://securityintelligence.com/the-past-present-and-future-of-dns-security/
• https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/komando/2018/05/18/how-protect-your-router-and-wi-fi-russian-hackers/621297002/
• https://mybroadband.co.za/news/security/301156-south-africas-za-domain-is-a-security-disaster-waiting-to-happen.html

They have been party to serious hacks:

• https://www.wired.com/story/sea-turtle-dns-hijacking/?verso=true
• https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/02/inside-the-dnspionage-hacks-that-hijack-domains-at-an-unprecedented-scale/

Note the Quad9 DNS service in partnership with IBM:

• https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/20/quad9_secure_private_dns_resolver/
• https://www.dailyhostnews.com/ibm-packet-clearing-house-global-cyber-alliances-new-free-service-protect-users-cyberattacks
• https://www.cyberscoop.com/quad9-dns-service-global-cyber-alliance/
• https://www.darkreading.com/analytics/ibm-nonprofits-team-up-in-new-free-dns-service/d/d-id/1330454
• https://gizmodo.com/new-dns-service-launched-by-ibm-vows-to-keep-your-brows-1820508262
• https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3021536/ibm-teams-with-global-cyber-alliance-to-launch-quad9-a-free-public-domain-name-service-system

Packet Clearing House has profiles at USAID, ProPublica, and Bloomberg

• https://partnerships.usaid.gov/resource-partner/packet-clearing-house
• https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943380476
• https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/0068845D:US

Berkman Center has paper archives on both PCH and its founder

• https://cyber.harvard.edu/ixp/library.htm

Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes a source - The vast majority of the sources above only contain PCH-related content because they're citing a paper for a specific fact or because the exec director is providing a quote or some information. For purposes here, that doesn't aid proving notability, and makes it harder to pick out the 2 or 3 that are needed. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Ocaasi, thank you for the leg-work; quite a few of those were new to me. FWIW, the Bloomberg one is mostly just factually incorrect. Nosebagbear, the two I picked I picked for the reason that each documented (however poorly) ongoing international projects with budgets of more than $10M/year for which we're exclusively responsible. In one case key management infrastructure, in the other, a specific campaign of cyber-defense deterrence and resilience-augmentation. The down-side of "independent journalism" is that it's often not clear enough to decipher what's going on through the journalist's hurry and hazy understanding. So we work with what we get. Bwoodcock 14:38, 8 August 2019 (PDT)

• Weak Keep - I remain unsure about the sourcing, but there's certainly some there (plus, non-notable organisations can get some mentions but aren't usually asked for dozens of quotes by some of the most reliable soures going). On top of that, there are also the IAR reasoning considered further up. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• So, can we consider this settled, and someone pull the notice from the PCH page? Bwoodcock 18:23, 10 August 2019 (PDT)

@Bwoodcock: - AfDs have to run for at least a week in almost all circumstances. We're coming up to that, at which case an uninvolved closer will take a look at this discussion - participants in the AfD can't close it amongst themselves. They'll probably discount some of the earlier discussions, since it isn't policy-supported, but they'll probably still judge the consensus as Keep, given the agreement around the references. They may decide to extend the discussion if they think we're failing at supporting our reasoning with accepted policy. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nosebagbear, thanks, I hadn't seen the one-week timeline. Bwoodcock 19:27, 10 August 2019 (PDT)

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. RL0919 (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Wilson (scientist)

Kate Wilson (scientist) (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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article is currently in very sad shape (easily a BLPPROD if the inappropriate inline links are removed), and I don't have time to clean it up myself. But searching Google Scholar for author:kate-wilson finds heavily-cited publications that look like hers, leading with a single-authored paper "Preparation of genomic DNA from bacteria" with nearly 2000 citations. So if the article reaches an acceptably cleaned up state, she may well pass
  WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think this is a good example of
  WP:PROF. I agree though that the article is in a poor state and needs fixing. Bookscale (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: her LinkedIn page shows she's just taken up post July 2019 as "Executive Director, Climate Change and Sustainability at NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment", I've converted one of the inline links into a proper ref which gives a biog profile, altogether appears to be notable. Pity that the umpteen editors who've tagged it etc over the years didn't actually stop by to improve it at all, but hey that's Wikipedia for you! Note that there's another Australian academic Kate Wilson with whom not to confuse her. PamD 12:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, assuming someone can find and add more citations. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I have added two books and a primary source reference. Her actual training is as a
  WP:RS exists as pointed out by other editors in this thread. Wm335td (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Based on the improvements made above, it looks like she meets notability requirements. PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2019 (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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Canning

Henry Canning (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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete consuls are not generally notable. The sourcing is atrociously bad here. The fact this article has existed for 13 years is a testament to how flawed our article creation process is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Johnpacklambert. I don't agree that the process is bad; the product is sometimes weak. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2019 (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.

Rao Ajay

Rao Ajay (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 person who fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails notability requirements. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul K. Sybrowsky

Paul K. Sybrowsky (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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a university president he passes default notability for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  WP:GNG lacking anything of note. Simonm223 (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Being the president of a university is a clear pass of academic notability criteria 6.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Concur with JPL on this one. Being president of a major academic institution passes
  WP:NACADEMIC. Sources exist and simply need to be added. Rollidan (talk) 03:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - per above. Passes
  WP:NACADEMIC #6: The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. MarginalCost (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Very weak keep I think
  WP:NACADEMIC is very silly to favor school administrators with automatic notability that way, but this isn't the venue for that debate. Simonm223 (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. I sourced some stuff to Virginia newspapers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes
  WP:NACADEMIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 21:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Thomas (priest)

Walter Thomas (priest) (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 is a presumption of notability to bishops of major territorial churches, but this does not extend to archdeacons, who are subordinate officials, having supervision of part of the diocese. There is no reference to show notability here other than routine biographical notices DGG ( talk ) 09:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 09:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Comment. I looked through the 106 Google results for "Walter Thomas" "Church of Ireland", and the only result relating to this particular Walter Thomas seems to be the Fasti Ecclesiae Hibernicae, cited in the article. This book simply lists the dates on which Thomas held certain positions, and since these positions aren't inherently notable as the nom points out I don't think it establishes notability all by itself. I couldn't find the reference to him in citation 1 (no page number given and no luck on GBooks), and citation 6 7 is just a transcript of an email which mentions him in a genealogical table. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 17:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my !vote for now since a new source has been added and I haven't thought through setting a precedent for the office of archdeacon as a whole. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 22:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: No presumption of notability, but archdeacons are usually kept - see the template at the bottom of the article. StAnselm (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm and DGG: I am guessing that the article was created to fill in a navbox link. All the articles I clicked on in the "Archdeacons of Killaloe" navbox, from John Hall (Archdeacon of Killaloe) and Richard Daniel (priest) through to the last entry Ernest Murray seem to be in a similar state, so—without prior judgement on the notability of those other articles—I think this might imply the need for a wider discussion about how to handle this category of officeholders. If they are generally not covered in any depth in RS then it might be better to collapse them into a list at the Archdeacon of Killaloe (etc.) article, with links to separate articles if and when they're independently notable. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 22:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Also look at these

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Plemth

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Booth (priest)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Henry Cameron

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael John Keatinge

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Raphael

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Tuttebury

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas de Bodham

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wandlyn Snelgrove

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Verschoyle

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Wolfe (priest)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Wall (priest)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Falkiner Goold

Bashereyre (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bashereyre. I haven't read through all of the discussions yet but the general theme seems to be that there are many archdeacons who are independently notable but the office itself doesn't create a presumption of notability. So the problem then is creating such a presumption via things like a navbox full of red links—but I'm not sure how to fix that. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 15:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• At most Weak keep, perhaps delete -- In England the Church of England is the dominant church, so that it may be appropriate for most archdeacons to have articles. This is not the case in Ireland, where only the ascendancy were Protestant, the majority of the population being Catholic. On this basis I can make a distinction between England and Ireland. The archdeacon is a member of the cathedral chapter. In his case he served as archdeacon for just a year and then moved on (via precentor) to be cathedral treasurer, both NN roles. In this particular case I am not sure we need the article. However, then archdeacons navbox needs to be amended so that we do not have redlinks for people of whom we will probably never know much. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't make a distinction here: the basis for bishops being notable is their social role, and in the 18th c., as here, the CoE was still Established & had the same official role, as far as the governing classes were concerned. Whatever the rule, it would make more sense and be more in accord with NPOV, to apply it to any church with a substantial representation, rather than try to make this sort of distinction. DGG ( talk ) 09:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi its me again. These Afds never generate much response, largely I suspect because they are so uncontroversial. Maybe a definite ruling on Archdeacons is needed; and also perhaps on Monsenieurs (?) in the RC church Bashereyre (talk) 10:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bashereyre: Afaik there is definitely no presumption of notability for a Catholic monsignor, and a quick search of the AfD archives suggests that people have made that point explicitly. At least until recently, tons of people were given the title of monsignor automatically, e.g. the canons at certain diocesan cathedrals, who would not merit an article just because of that. That said, on the issue of archdeacons, lack of response generally indicates that people are unsure, not that it's uncontroversial (which would mean a lot of people responding with one option). This particular article still looks very borderline to me. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 17:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well referenced, enough to demonstrate notability regardless of title.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are four sources, one of which fails verification, the other is self-published; the third talks about two people who may or may not be the same individual, and only the fourth is definitely about him, and amounts to a couple of notices. So I'm not sure about that at all. I won't press it though, just replying since this was listed as a response to me. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 16:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Trying to set an arbitrary bar for people never really works out, again and again. The better way is to see whether this historical person has xyr life and works recorded in depth in the history books, the ordinary multiple independent sources that document the subject in depth from identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy thing. By far the easiest reason that people with high office are often notable is that they are in the history books in detail. They are in things like the Dictionary of Irish Biography, or covered in detail in a parish/diocese/town history.

  I have checked and this person is not in the DIB. The Fasti Ecclesiae Hibernicae does not support all of the content that it is being purported to support, either. It's mainly a bare list of dates and offices held, and Bashereyre has not spotted that the information about 1714 is a question, not a statement, so in fact you do not have a source confirming that this person actually was an archdeacon, as the source that you have questions whether this is a matching record. So the whole setting the arbitrary bar at archdeacons idea is wrong for a second reason.

  Looking, I cannot find anything beyond mentions in lists, like the sources at hand. This person's life and works appear not to be documented in depth beyond directories of office-holders, anywhere, either cited or that I can find; and Wikipedia is not a directory of people, which is all that that gets us. No historian has actually done the legwork, including for starters conclusively matching up the questioned records to form a definitive narrative.

  Uncle G (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Uncle G: I totally missed the quaerere. If this article is (potentially) mixing up two different people then that's a whole new problem. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 16:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have edited the article now to note that it's not certain per the source —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 16:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Archdeacons are not presumed notable, although they often could be, based on
  depth of coverage in sources. FWIW, my paternal grandmother was C. of I. Bearian (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete sourcing is not good enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Could you please relist the discussion, so that I can continue my searches next monday? Thomas wrote a letter to William Smyth about John Allen. My feeling is that there might be something interesting to find… Genium. 01:21, Aug 2, 2019 (UTC)

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 21:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Injection

Metal Injection (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 new sources that were added after the previous soft delete and restore are either

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The reference in Extreme Metal: Music and Culture is brief but does imply some notable significance as a pioneer in a specific (niche) field. Amusingly it does so in the context of talking about how the niche nature of metal makes it difficult to get attention to dedicated media sources. (You know, like having Wikipedia pages.) Admittedly there's a lot of source padding here and the article is very borderline. But I think this is a harmless one where we can err on the side of inclusionism. Simonm223 (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be better to have significant coverage. That is what
    WP:GNG states. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment Just for the record folks: This article was first nominated for deletion in 2005, with that result was Delete by two editors who agreed to its deletion. In 2019, somebody recreated the article in an apparent of
  WP:REFUND case. How many nominations do we need to claim an article notability or otherwise?--Biografer (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Once it's determined that it's notable, that cannot be revoked. If the article keeps getting recreated and the subject is repeatedly determined to not be be notable, we can
    WP:SALT it to avoid recreation. Otherwise, we could be at the delete recreate process for a long while. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Delete fails
  WP:SIGCOV, but my searches are not finding it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2019 (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.