Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 1 February	3 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wycherley International School

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

Fails

WP:NSCHOOL, lacks any independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(talk) 23:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(talk) 23:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(talk) 23:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(talk) 23:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Just promotional puff. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. The article's references from reliable sources confirm its role as an English-medium international school. All high schools are notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, high schools are not automatically notable they are required to satisfy

WP:GNG, which is they have significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. The references provided are merely mentions in passing and don’t satisfy the criteria. Dan arndt (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Fails GNG, Alex-h (talk) 08:59, 8 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SaQi

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

The

WP:CRYSTAL but in either case doesn't meet the standard required for an encyclopedic entry. Pinging User:Athaenara who previously tagged the article for speedy and User:UnitedStatesian who removed the tag. Timmyshin (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(talk) 23:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(talk) 23:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(talk) 23:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I had a hard time trying to get editors to fix it so if no one can be bothered to fix it then it may as well be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.100.131.115 (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nominator describes the situation very well (I, too, started trying to fix it and got through only the first two sections). – Athaenara ✉ 19:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I should note that I had initially tagged it for speedy deletion per {{db-g11}} (diff). When another editor removed the tag a couple of hours later I thought, why not see if it can be helped, give it a try. The problem is that it is not and never was a neutral and well-sourced encyclopedia article (not a euphemism) but more like a page on facebook or some other social website where anybody can publicize anything. – Athaenara ✉ 23:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thanks for the ping. The sources do not rise to the levels required by
WP:NMUSIC. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
- Why bother fixing the article if you want it deleted? What a waste of time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.100.131.115 (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think there's any way of salvaging this into an encyclopedia article, given that others have had a go and given up. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:48, 9 February 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 merge to Jeanne Calment. There is a clear consensus against keeping this article. Unfortunately that is where the consensus seems to end. In such cases my default is WP:ATD. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yvonne Calment

)

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

Is this person notable in any way that has nothing to do with the recent rumor that Jeanne Calment's longevity might be fake?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Yvonne is only notable as being the daughter of Jeanne and possibly (according to the theory) the person who lived under her mother's identity in later life. It's frankly silly to open a new article for her. Strong support for delete, and merge any extra information about Yvonne back into the original article on Jeanne Calment (although I suspect there's no new information here). Oska (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Not only is this person not independently notable outside of a rumor, but nearly all of this information is already in the Jeanne Calment article. CCS81 (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Either we have Jeanne Calment 1875-1997 and Yvonne Calment 1898-1934, or Jeanne Calment 1875-1934 and Yvonne Calment 1898-1997. In both cases it's worth a single page, in the first case Jeanne Calment for a record lifespan, in the second case Yvonne Calment for a notorious deception. There is no consensus about the truth and many serious people currently have no definite opinion about the case. Splitting into two pages would only result in more mess. No merge needed, there was already relevant information about young Yvonne Calment in Jeanne Calment's page.--Alpha carinae (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yvonne has absolutely no notability on her own. Any controversies about her identity belongs to the Jeanne Calment article where the info is already present. A simple redirect page is perfectly adequate. --McSly (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no indepdent notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMO a merge risks adding to the confusion. Yvonne Calment may be the person commonly known as "Jeanne Calment", but for now the evidence is circumstantial.--Davidcpearce (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Notability is
WP:NOTINHERITED. The only mentions of Yvonne Calment in sources are totally consequential of her mother's notability. Material relevant to Yvonne is fully covered in Jeanne's article. No reason for a content fork. — JFG ^talk 11:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(talk) 23:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(talk) 23:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(talk) 23:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per
WP:ONEEVENT. Yvonne is virtually unknown outside of the context of her mother and we already have enough information in her mother's article which talks about her. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge because this title should be a redirect to Jeanne's page. If Yvonne went by Jeanne then we follow
WP:COMMONNAME. There is pretty strong evidence that the daughter took the mother's identity, and I appreciate the idea of splitting out a page to provide more information along that theory without upsetting the sensabilities of the true believers in the woman who claimed to live three years longer than any other human in recorded history. Legacypac (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge back to Jeanne Calment. Either the daughter is known only because of the mother or they are the same person. There is no independent notability and there isn't anything new in this article, but the only reason not to delete this outright is the redirect is helpful to readers who have read the daughter's name. Jonathunder (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could understand the value of a separate page about the validation of Mme Calment's age and identity which would allow the topic to be documented at more length without putting undue weight about it in the Jeanne Calment page. However, this page will not serve that purpose and Yvonne Calment does not have notability independently of her mother. There is nothing significant here that could be merged back into Jeanne Calment. Weburbia (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability shown per above; fringe theories don't count. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 11:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to Jeanne Calment. No independent notability. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a redirect, no evidence of independent notability. —Kusma (t·c) 21:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Needed information for readers considering coverage, but it does not pass
WP:BIO1E. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 22:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge. This can be a part of "Jeanne Calment" Alex-h (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is detrimental to have a content fork for an invividual with no independent notability. - LukeSurl^{t c} 13:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / redirect to
WP:BIO1E and hence merging is the correct action in this case. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge This woman is not significant enough to have her own article. The idea that she usurped her mother's identity is ridiculous. All information on her can be found in her mother's article. If it isn't, it should be added.
talk) 23:28, 9 February 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 under
WP:RSs. Mjroots (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Sonasan railway station

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

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

This railway station is not notable. The article fails
WP:GNG. The article should be redirected to its line according to Wikipedia:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations)#Stations. Because that article does not exist, it should be REDIRECTED to Western Railway. Rhadow (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Indian-railway related AFDs:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonasan railway station

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapa Road railway station — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyw7 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for the exact same reasons in the other mainline rail station AfD started by the same nom. WP
consensus wisely decided long ago that all rail stations are notable. This ensures thousands of editors don't waste there time and energy fleshing out and debating the retention of articles on the tens of thousands of stations when editors efforts are much better spent on creating new articles and improving existing ones. For this and most stations, it's impossible for in depth coverage like extensive government reports and budgets to not exist.Oakshade (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

"[I]t's impossible for in depth coverage like extensive government reports and budgets to not exist." This argument is based on faith, rather than demonstrable evidence. It is a self-sealing argument, a logical fallacy. Rhadow (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge as per OP and for the reasons I argue at
ping me) 23:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The article is a stub which does not establish the notability of this station.TH1980 (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- @Rhadow:, I am bit confused. It appears that you created this article and after 7 minutes nominated it for deletion. You could have simply G7ed it. What's going on? Hitro talk 07:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT
creation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyw7&oldid=881503564#Notability. I've G7ed it. --
ping me) 11:01, 3 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy Lifestyles for High School Students

Healthy Lifestyles for High School Students (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional unreferenced personal essay. Very worthy, but not encyclopedic. Rathfelder (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NOTESSAY. Ajf773 (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. This looks like something that would have been written for a class assignment, but it was written almost 3 years ago and the editor who created the page hasn't edited since 2016. So I doubt we will be able to find out what class it was. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like personal research. Rogermx (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NOTESSAY –dlthewave ☎ 20:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
talk) 09:54, 9 February 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. Anyone who wishes to create a redirect per the suggestion below is free to do so. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ISpy (TV series)

ISpy (TV series) (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)

TV series did not exist and is a probable hoax written to support Sam Buchanan which is also a probable hoax and which has been nominated for AfD. Either way, the article is unsourced and unreferenced Jack1956 (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no evidence that this TV series ever existed. The article creator didn't even bother to list the originating television network, or for that matter, any cast members in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to
chatter) 01:06, 3 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Cutler

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

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

Subject fails
WP:BASEBALL consensus has stated clearly that WBC qualifiers doesn't count. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence he play in the main WBC tournament and clearly otherwise does not pass NBASE nor any special coverage that would suggest GNG (I detail more about why his minor league coverage does not satisify GNG here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was not listed on the roster for the Israeli team for the main WBC tournament[1] and doesn't appear to meet any other criteria of
WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Per
WP:NBASE I believe his appearances in the qualifier for both 2013 and 2017 meet the criteria. He was a member of a national team for a major international tournament. I do not see any reason qualifiers are excluded from that. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:NBASE was the 2017 WBC qualifier. WP:BASEBALL consensus is that the qualifier isn't the tournament. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 5 February 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. Meets
(non-admin closure) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 14:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Xiaoyuan Tu

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, bio of a living person with only 3 references, them being a LinkedIn profile and the subject's Google site. CatcherStorm ^talk 16:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google scholar citation counts (7 publications cited over 100 times each, with one over 1000) are enough for
WP:PROF#C1. The ACM Doctoral Dissertation Award is a student award, but a significant one (basically, the top dissertation of the year in all of computer science). But the sourcing for the current article is horrible and it needs to be cut down to what can be sourced to reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Clearly passes
Phil Bridger (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Passes
WP:PROF#C1; needs cleanup and de-LinkedIn-ing, but that's not a cause for deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep There was a documentary on her aired on CCTV-1 [2], although the documentary itself is not online the title in TV guide is "Tu Xiaoyuan the AI research expert". Another article "Xiaoyuan's fish" from the May 1999 issue of Software World [3] also has a bio on herself. --Skyfiler (talk) 14:11, 5 February 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 soft delete.
WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Rex D. Pinegar

Rex D. Pinegar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A non-notable subject that does not meet
significant coverage appears to exist about the subject in said necessary sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per norm. I can only find minor passing mentions.Tamsier (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. this one may just need an editor willing to expand, source it. He get cited in scholarly literature, and there are quite a few hits in gBooks, mostly books of LDS pietism and memoir, search with and some without the middle initial. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 14:27, 2 February 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 Nomination withdrawn. Vijesh sreenivasan (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheng Taining

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

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

Non-Notable subject, only 2 references and that too doesn't meet notability guidelines. Vijesh sreenivasan (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
(talk) 14:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
(talk) 14:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep meets GNG. See the extensive German wikipedia article de:Cheng Taining for references. Timmyshin (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - academician of the
WP:NACADEMIC #3. I've expanded the article to include his major projects, which is a quite impressive list. -Zanhe (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I totally translated from Chinese Version, so this might not enough information, but German version has. This person is a famous architect in China as an academician of Chinese Academy of Engineering. Classic.Day 06:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment- If so Please add some good ref to the article, What i feel is given ref links are not good enough and poorly sourced for a BLP's. And i have checked with google for this name and the name gets some hits and that redirects to some online book shop's buying page not to any news article of the above mentioned subject. I think some more discussions and verifications needed before closing this afd.Vijesh sreenivasan (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't expect readily available news articles in the Roman alphabet as sources for a Chinese architect born in 1935. I've cited a couple of the many book sources available, including one published by a university press with at least 900 words about the subject (Google Books doesn't show me anything after the first page).
Phil Bridger (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Having said that I see that, although they might not be suspected, there are readily available news articles in the Roman alphabet to be found simply by clicking on the word "news" in the searches automatically provided by the nomination procedure, including confirmation of the academy membership by The New York Times, the South China Morning Post etc.
Phil Bridger (talk) 12:55, 3 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Medknow Publications

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

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

Fails
WP:NCORP. ∯WBG^converse 14:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
(talk) 14:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
(talk) 14:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I'd consider Medknow to be a notable (if not very good) subsidiary of
b} 16:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note, it was briefly on Beall's list [4] for having an 'vague/unproven business model', but it was taken down because 'It is the publisher for many well-respected Indian professional societies and is disseminating abundant, high-quality research.'.
b} 19:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Gave the article a polish and a spitshine. Trimned a lot of
b} 20:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:NCORP is non-comprehensible? ∯WBG^converse 07:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Which part of 'meets
b} 07:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:ORGCRIT. I can go into a detailed analysis of sources (esp. intellectual independency); shall you wish so. ∯WBG^converse 07:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Feel free to intellectualize the sources, but
b} 07:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:NCORP, anyway? The "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?" Science article, obviously very critical, gives it not just as an example but as "one of the largest open-access publishers". The "India's Efforts in Open Access Publishing " article names Medknow the first "among leading [Open Access, Indian] publishers", for example. So Medknow has 1. significant coverage in 2. multiple 3. independent, 4. reliable 5. secondary sources – which of these is not true? Tokenzero (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Don't forget Beall either.
b} 15:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Passes the GNG, and as best I can tell,
WP:NCORP too. XOR'easter (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

A reasonable number of independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 17:41, 3 February 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 15:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Buchanan

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

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

Notability not established and probable hoax. Subject, if he existed, seems to have appeared only in a couple of low level tv series one of which doesn't even have an article and he seemingly hasn't done anything for over 10 years. A search of the birth records for Aldershot (where I live} for 1991 shows no such birth. Jack1956 (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
(talk) 14:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
(talk) 14:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
(talk) 14:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
(talk) 14:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as does not pass
WP:NACTOR with not even a listing at IMDb and neither does one of the named television series and the other one has no mention of him or his character so am having strong suspiscions that this is a hoax article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. The sources provided are all either broken links or social media pages that don't provide any relevant information, much less information to support this person's notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely fails the
WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:15, 3 February 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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Building 64

Building 64 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This has nothing in it that the main article should not, and appears to be centered on self-published work. Qwirkle (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Expanded below to address @MarnetteD:’s concerns: This has nothing in it that the main article
Authorhouse.Qwirkle (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Not sure what main article is being referred to. Also from what I can find the refs are not self published. MarnetteD|Talk 02:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at all the sources... I can't get over how much is written about this one building.--Moxy (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Authorhouse, outright self-published; a...picture book (oddly, not so bad), and the Chronicle book, where we learn that “big guns” are “cannon”! (or is it vice versa? See figure 15. Doesn’t that drip authority?) Qwirkle (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I was referring to the "find sources" search at the the top of the section. Lots and lots on this small building.--Moxy (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The overwhelming majority I saw from the Google sites were for other buildings, and those I did see for this structure were closely connected with other larger subjects -the Island, the fort, the prison. (Of course, that’s a real weakness with Google; it tries to find the answers it thinks we want to hear based on search history, location, etc.) Qwirkle (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - better addressed in Alcatraz article. Agricolae (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The two objections would be a merge proposal rather than a delete. Also very little
WP:BEFORE seems to have taken place. MarnetteD|Talk 06:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
No, I think I ran through the
WP:BEFORE
checklist completely, save the foreign versions. It does not appear to have independent notability, and it appears to be used promotionally. Were the self-published material removed, there would be nothing that isn’t already (rightly) in other articles, by the look of it.

That said, merging is always an option, although its ambiguous title might make that a problem later. Qwirkle (talk) 06:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, the main article is plenty big as it stands and splitting off items has been a benefit to it. Next, as Moxy has pointed out, there is info available to expand it. Finally, there is nothing about the article as it stands that is promotional. MarnetteD|Talk 07:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps @Moxy: could give some examples of encyclopedic content that her(IMS) searches have disclosed?

I would say that self-published content is generally promotional, gaining far more from Wiki that it bring to Wiki, and I do not see Champion’s book as an exception. Do you? Qwirkle (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that the main article is too big assumes that this particular building merits significant bulky coverage that would overwhelm the main article. That is not the case. Just because one author has produced a work of love covering every building and open area on the site does not mean that each deserves their own articles. It is a perfect example of the tendency of Wikipedia to give inordinate attention to obscure and trivial detail. Alcatraz is a notable and noteworthy topic. There had better be some really special independent notability for Building Number Whatever on the site to have to have a standalone article rather than being adequately addressed with a single sentence or two in the main article, and I don't see it. (Basically, is the fact that it is on Alcatraz incidental to it being notable? If not, then it is not independently notable.) Agricolae (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

How does removing this information help our readers? There is nothing egregious about the article.... Wikipedia:Does deletion help?.
First, I’d disagree there is nothing egregious about this article, unless you are contending that most Wiki articles are about subjects without independent notability sourced to self-published work.

How does this article harm the reader? Foremost, it misrepresents the importance of something. Wikipedia should reflect informed scholarship about what is notable, not create it. This building has no notability outside of the prison.

Also, it increases the volume of words a reader must chew through without increasing the amount of information the reader receives. If there is nothing significant here that isn’t, or shouldn’t be, in one of the potential parent articles, duplication of the same facts simply wastes reader’s time. Qwirkle (talk) 16:57, 2 February 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 merge to Single-gender world#Female-only worlds. There appears to be a rough consensus against keeping this article. Unfortunately that is where the consensus ends. This has been relisted twice w/o additional input so it's time to make a judgement call. I am going with what looks like the best merge target to my mind. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian utopia

Lesbian utopia (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)

It looks like a discussion of parthenogenesis possibilities in humans (or other female-only human reproductive possibilities) and a short version of the Single-gender_world#Female-only_worlds section. I don't think it's notable/verifiable enough to be a separate article from Single-gender world. Woodsy lesfem (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 00:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 00:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 00:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect - Article doesn't provide any value, hardly passes
WP:GNG. Should redirect to Single-gender world per nominator. Skirts89 (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I'll alert
talk) 00:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge the "In fiction" section, obviously, but the "Reproduction" section is sourced to BBC articles with no mention of any lesbian utopias. wumbolo ^^^ 07:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to notability, I find only passing mentions in scholarly sources and I did not look at Encyclopedia of Erotic Literature (page 1189) or Women's studies encyclopedia (page 1442) which are cited at Utopian and dystopian fiction and look promising. I did look (on Google Books) at To Write Like a Woman (around page 130 or 140) cited at Single-gender world and it is enough for a keep !vote from me (when we also take into account other references below), provided that it is reliable (I don't know myself). I am neutral on what the redirect target should be. wumbolo ^^^ 22:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the term "lesbian utopia" most frequently is used in context of discussions of
Lesbian Separatism, not to Single-gender_world#Female-only_worlds. The fiction could be merged into Single-gender_world#Female-only_worlds. Where would the biological research go? --Theredproject (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Nowhere. The mouse already has an article at Kaguya (mouse), while the cloning is probably already covered in an article about cloning. wumbolo ^^^ 17:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Undecided at present. At first blush, my instinct would have been to vote to redirect to
Lesbian separatism, but based on the current content of the two, Single-gender world#Female-only worlds seems a better match. However, current content shouldn't be decisive. So far, I find Theredproject's argument most convincing, as far as the title, the fiction content, as well as their question about the research. Mathglot (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The easy suggestion here would be to Delete wholesale, since the subject lacks adequate independent notability. This is an attempt to upgrade a common expression in feminist and lesbian writings into a widely used, stand-alone term. (The attempt is evident even in the sourcing, where it is made explicit that the sources indicate "usage" of the term!) Nonetheless, and since it seems there may be some text worth preserving, such text should be Merged into the respective articles, as above, with a Redirect graciously in place of the contested article. -The Gnome (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Single-gender_world#Female-only_worlds or Utopian_and_dystopian_fiction#Feminist_utopias. On the one hand, there does seem to be enough discussion of lesbian utopias in scholarly sources to potentially support an article, contrary to the arguments of other users. On the other hand, the sources seem to discuss them as a subset of feminist utopias, which have their own features but are best understood in that context. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ New Sexual Violence Study Findings Have Been Reported from Southern Illinois University. (2011). Women's Health Weekly, 162.

^ Murphy, J. (1987). Naming the Violence: Speaking Out About Lesbian Battering. Off Our Backs, 17(2), 18.

^ Savona, J. (1996). Lesbians on the French stage: From homosexuality to Monique Wittig's lesbianization of the theatre. Modern Drama, 39(1), 132-155.

^ Stuart, J. (2006). In another bracket: Trans acceptance in lesbian utopia. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 10(1-2), 215-229.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:56, 2 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Helmut Fischer GMBH

Helmut Fischer GMBH (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
WP:SIGCOV. The author is attempting to bypass rejection of Draft:Helmut Fischer GMBH at AFC. Strong indications of undisclosed paid editing including failure to answer requests on talk page & use of "we" when removing the PROD. Cabayi (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Didn't satisfy
corporate notability
in article space.

Forgot to sign this. Robert McClenon (talk)

Draft should also be considered part of this bundle and should be deleted if article is deleted:

Draft:Helmut Fischer GMBH (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both: does not meet
WP:SPIP, insufficient for establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:36, 9 February 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Vickaryous

Scott Vickaryous (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)

Known for one minor part, now works in the food and beverage industry fails
WP:GNG no in-depth coverage anywhere just the usual listings and IMDb Theroadislong (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect to
WP:NACTOR's call for multiple notable roles. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Clearly does not pass the GNG and needs leading roles in at least two major productions to qualify under NACTOR, which doesn't seem met. Chetsford (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously fails the
WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Actors are not handed an automatic free pass over
reliable source attention as a result of his having acting roles, such as his performances getting singled out for dedicated attention in the film or television reviews, his winning or getting nominated for major acting awards, and/or entertainment journalists actually writing news articles about him. The only reference here is a short blurb in a Buzzfeed listicle, not a reliable or notability-bolstering source. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 4 February 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. Michig (talk) 07:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right (EP)

Right (EP) (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 EP, there's no significant coverage of reliable sources. The only known source that actually confirms this EP's existence is Spotify which is obviously primary and unsuitable. This EP could actually be fan-made and unofficial, there's no way to verify if this is truly released by
Flooded w/them 100s 07:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Conditional Redirect to Marshmello) - Nom is correct that not only is notability nowhere near demonstrated (including in a BEFORE sweep, though it's quite google unfriendly, even with suitable associated search terms), but actually its existence isn't - if existence can be proved, at least, this is a redirect. Nosebagbear (talk)

Note I have also dropped a non-formal notification of the AfD on Marshmello's talk page - since its a good article, hopefully there's some knowledgable editors. As well as being a neutral comment, I also felt that it was unlikely to be classified as canvassing as they'd be more likely to !vote Keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Redirect to
WP:NMUSIC. The article's only reference links to his own SoundCloud profile. Lazz _R 12:32, 3 February 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 merge to The Blueprint 2: The Gift & The Curse. czar 15:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bounce (song)

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

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

Does not meet
WP:USERGEN. Content can be incorporated into the The Blueprint 2: The Gift & The Curse, which is mainly just composed of critical reception and an unverified background section. Ascribe4 (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 19:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this non-notable song with the album. Trillfendi (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:43, 9 February 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. Note: No content sourced to merge and no mention of this topic in its parent article. czar 15:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental pattern

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

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

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

This article has been unsourced apparently since its creation in 2004. It claims that fundamental patterns are part of design patterns, but Software design pattern makes no reference to them. I can’t find any reliable sources to support this article, but if ‘fundamental pattern’ is really a valid term, perhaps this should be merged into Software design pattern. Mccapra (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it is difficult to distinguish between the term "fundamental design pattern" being used in sources according to its definition in this article, and sources using this phrase without that meaning (i.e. "The fundamental design pattern of this system is..."). Most of the sources I found use the latter, not the former. One exception (there may be more): Agerbo and Cornils 1998 (not cited in article, usage suspect). Enterprisey (talk!) 07:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is primarily a list of unsourced examples. Dgpop (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Systemic bias and recentism, supposing that software is all that matters. In fact, patterns are a commonplace concept in all sorts of crafts and manufacture. When one looks for sources for the phrase, one therefore finds books like the Parisian Ladies' Tailoring System. Andrew D. (talk) 20:32, 2 February 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 speedy delete (G5). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Z. Moore

Brandon Z. Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:INHERIT
from two people he works with. Removing the two celebrities mentioned (and a recent current event not directly effecting the subject) I don't think he has enough notability for his own wp page.)
The creator removed the PROD on a direct appeal to
WP:INHERIT, ie. "he has notable clients and therefore is notable." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a non-notable music business person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this 'inherit' policy is only about mere 'association'. https://heavy.com/entertainment/2019/01/brandon-z-moore/ shows he's currently notable on his own now. Managers are not merely associates. BZM is also president of the label 4HunnidRecords. EphFan (talk) 05:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 2 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

F. Michael Watson

F. Michael Watson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

This subject does not meet
WP:BASIC. Source searches are providing very little coverage in independent, reliable sources, and no significant coverage in said sources appears to exist. The one independent source in the article only provides a three-sentence mention of the subject, which is not significant in depth, and the rest of the sources in the article are primary, which do not establish notability. Furthermore, from source searching, sources that provide quotations from the subject's speeches without almost any other information are primary in nature, and do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 03:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only coverage I can find independent of the religious organization he serves is this reprint of a church press release in the Cook Islands News.
WP:BIO requires significant coverage from multiple independent sources. There's an argument that even the reprint doesn't rise to significance, since the Cook Islands have a population of 17,000—imagine trying to establish notability based on a single article in the local paper of Gretna, Louisiana. Lagrange 613 11:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Can't find references outside of LDS church sources. Britishfinance (talk) 21:30, 9 February 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. Michig (talk) 07:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kingo Root

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

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

Reason: Possibly malware, few and unreliable sources, written somewhat like an ad. Mosaicberry (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 17:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a related software page with a condensed version of the content already posted. I find the CNET coverage particularly compelling when considering a keep vote. However, I performed rather intensive research with various search phrases and found very little coverage that would bring it past the general notability guideline . I do get the impression it is a legitimate freeware program, based on the coverage, just with capabilities that make it useful for whitehat and blackhat hackers. 31.54.34.61 (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 2 February 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. Michig (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens for Home Rule

Citizens for Home Rule (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 entirely sure if the article passes muster for
WP:NOBILITY GPL93 (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

4 independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. News archive searches show coverage of this group going back at least to the 90s. Knox County based, their basic issue was to oppose annexation of suburban neighborhoods and nearby hamlets by cities in Tennessee. Many years of regional and statewide coverage exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I’ve also previously wondered about the notability of this article’s topic but per the comments above by other editors I concluded that it was sufficiently supported by refs. While local in scope, I think it’s notable enough to keep. Mccapra (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article could use a little cleaning up, especially considering the majority of the references are deadlinks. Regardless, even after just a quick Google search it's evident that there is absolutely sufficient news coverage from a variety of independent sources to satisfy the criteria outlined at
WP:ORG. [5][6][7][8] Omni Flames (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The article clearly meets
WP:GNG, as well it had significant news coverage and sufficiently supported by well sourced refs as per other editors above. Sheldybett (talk) 11:00, 2 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global day

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

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

I can’t find any sources to support the claimed use of this term. While I imagine it probably exists, I’m doubtful whether it is sufficiently notable to warrant an article. Mccapra (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
talk) 03:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Searches show more positives for Global Market Day but even that would be a
notable. AllyD (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This appears to be sourceable in quality book sources. Innovations in International and Cross-Cultural Management has substantial coverage of the topic over several pages. Using currency options more effectively also appears substantial, although I only have snippet view. Trading in the Global Currency Markets gives it a couple of paragraphs. Numerous other sources, while not in-depth, show that the concept is a common term-of-art in the sector. SpinningSpark 01:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks for tracking these down. The first looks like a substantial ref but the others are passing refs. As I said in my nomination I imagine the term exists but even seeing these refs does not leave me convinced the topic is notable enough for an article. Mccapra (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra: I don't agree that Trading in the Global Currency Markets is a passing mention. It talks about New York being the end of the global day and gives an historical reason; California failed in the 1980s to fill the gap between New York and Tokyo. This is a fact that could sensibly be added to the article. The rest of the section is discussing expected level of activity in different parts of the global day, so still on the same topic. It starts on page 117 and finishes on page 119, admittedly, the middle page is mostly charts, but it is still more than a trivial passing mention. I also found this paper "Time Scales and Organizational Theory" which is behind a paywall and I wouldn't bother the library to get it unless the article was definitely going to be kept, but this snippet
"Circadian rhythms are particularly visible in global financial markets (Figure 2B), where the pattern of activity repeats itself every 24 hours, but only over the work week (the period of validity). The global “day” begins in New Zealand, just west of the International Date Line …"

which indicates there is non-trivial material there. SpinningSpark 09:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Worked most of my life in capital markets and never head this term. Searched for it on google and could not find a reasonable reference. I am sure that there are some investment books that may have used the phrase, but this is not a defined term in capital markets (maybe why this article has no references). Britishfinance (talk) 21:10, 9 February 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. Michig (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsey Sanders

Kelsey Sanders (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 article only has IMDb as a source. This is not a reliable source. My searches came up with additional sourcing like twitter and linkedin but nothing that looked like reliable sourcing John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article and this one both confirm that she had a leading role (second billing) in The Genesis Code. This article confirms her role in Private. This press release does not itself demonstrate notability, but provides additional information about her. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain's reasoning,
WP:NACTOR has its first criterion satisfied. I also suspect that her role in the (intriguingly named) Gingerdead Man 2 is significant enough to qualify. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 4 February 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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. Note: I am discounting the sole comment as it does not cite a valid rational based on WP:PAG. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smuckers (song)

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

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

Does not meet
WP:NSONG. User continues to rely on blogs and websites cited as unreliable. Any verifiable content can be incorporated into the Cherry Bomb under Recording and production / Music and lyrics / Promotion and release. Ascribe4 (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 19:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as Tyler is a popular artist, and virtually no collab will go unnoticed.ColorTheoryRGB CMYK 01:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 2 February 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. bd2412 T 23:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Working Boy Center

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

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

fails
WP:GNG The Banner talk 12:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I think it's notable enough. ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A wiode variety of independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Including related sources, deaItalic textd links and fundraisers. The Banner talk 14:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would agree with the "keeps". Jzsj (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, as author. The Banner talk 22:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The name isn't always translated in the same way, so it's probably better to look for the Spanish name:

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

Phil Bridger (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I did look at the Spanish name when doing my research! The Banner talk 12:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that these references that were recently removed should be restored:
https://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/noticias/sociedad/6/centro-del-muchacho-trabajador-capacita-a-los-emprendedores-urbanos

https://www.idealist.org/en/nonprofit/5de6aef6eb0e46a5abcac0e45f15d366-centro-del-muchacho-trabajador-volunteers-manhattan

https://www.osf.org/ecuador Jzsj (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You really think that fundraising pages are reliable, independent sources? The Banner talk 23:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ElTelegrafo is a newspaper article and I have no reason to question its reliability.

And where does Wiki exclude the use of references like The Orphaned Starfish Foundation (www.osf.org/ecuador) once the existence of the work is established? It lends repute and importance to an organization, and it's not coming from the organization itself. Jzsj (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Conveniently, you skip to remark about "idealist.org", a fundraiser. How many times are you pointed at
WP:RS? The Banner talk 08:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Be more specific: what in
WP:RS bans any citation to a foundation that supports the work. Jzsj (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 2 February 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 merge to 2019 Oceania Badminton Championships. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Oceania Badminton Championships – Team event

2019 Oceania Badminton Championships – Team event (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Doesn't need to create or separate the individual and team events from the main page 2019 Oceania Badminton Championships. As you can see this articles only cited the draw on the external link, and doesn't have secondary sources. Stvbastian (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nom ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Don't see any other convincing alternative. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 06:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is. Plus single/double/mixed events the page will be big. Also for Wikidata the division into separate pages like in tennis is better. Florentyna (talk) 14:11, 3 February 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 redirect to Systems of Romance. czar 05:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Motion (Ultravox song)

Slow Motion (Ultravox song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Very much lacking in coverage; no charting, one paragraph in a listicle, lots of being-talked-about by (surprise) the originator in an interview. Should be reverted to redirect to Systems of Romance and stay there for the time being. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per nom ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It did chart, reaching no. 33 in the UK, and got a fair amount of coverage at the time. A merge to the album would also be reasonable given the amount of current content. --Michig (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 7 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Open studio event

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

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

Article doesn't cite any sources at all and seems like reclame for me since they put links to all sorts of festivals. TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Support: but with contents being condensed and merged into the Studio article (perhaps into a new subsection under Art studio?). I did a quick search for reliable sources but unfortunately found only examples of such events. Meticulo (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these happen all over the world, but it's not something that is really encyclopedic to me, as if expanded (which would be easy to do, with sources), it would exist simply as a directory of open studio events. There's really not much to say about open studios. Maybe this could be merged to something like cultural tourism?
talk) 03:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to
Open Studio as I actually think that a description of what an open studio is, and the history of this social formation is quite interesting, and worthy of an article.^[1]^[2] The problem is that both articles are rife with promocruft. Neither Brighton Artists Open Houses nor Open Studios Cyprus are significant. There is also a page for Artists Open House. Bushwick Open Studios should prob have a page.^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] I think that Here are some existing pages Helfa gelf, Spring Fling Open Studios, Somerville Open Studios. Given that there are articles about specific open studio event, it seems logical that the phenomenon itself should have a page. --Theredproject (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Support:Open Studio Events are a fundamentally new type of collective cultural event (new, as in 30 years old) that take place in many parts of many countries. Although they are a new type of event, that does not make them less worthy of inclusion. Open Studio Events do not equate with any other type of art event, and should therefore be entitled to their own Wikipedia page. Individual Open Studio Events vary significantly in their precise form but share overall objectives. Therefore, a page for Open Studio Event should be considered on a par with a page like
Open Studio
, in that they are normally private work spaces that open only for the event.

References

^ "Interview about Open Studios with Dennis Elliott, Founder of the International Studio & Curatorial Program". iscp-nyc.org. Retrieved 2019-01-29.

^ Kaliner, Matthew (2013). Art, Crime and the Image of the City. Harvard Dissertation.

^ "Hundreds of Artists to Take Part in This Weekendâ€™s Bushwick Open Studios". Hyperallergic. 2018-09-25. Retrieved 2019-01-29.

ISSN 0362-4331
. Retrieved 2019-01-29.

ISSN 0362-4331
. Retrieved 2019-01-29.

^ "10 Must-See Events and Artworks at Bushwick Open Studios". artnet News. 2016-09-30. Retrieved 2019-01-29.

WP:PAG
.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the prose, which is fairly inoccuous, delete the spammy list of external links. It's a reasonable subject for an article, non-trivial coverage in Exhibiting Photography: A Practical Guide and Selling Art 101. SpinningSpark 20:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support a merge to
Open Studio (which is currently incorrectly capitalised) SpinningSpark 20:08, 2 February 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 05:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CRAIC Technologies

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

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

Notability tag has been in place for three years and I can’t see any sources that would support notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough material to support notability, it seems — After reviewing the "references" in the article already and looking for more, I couldn't come up with sufficient material to establish notability of the company at this time. Best of luck to others. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 08:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this one more week for discussion. A "soft delete" is not an option due to the article's history.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails
requisite depth. SITH (talk) 12:42, 7 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Data ownership

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

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

This is original research by synthesis (
WP:SYNTH). There is, broadly speaking, no erga omnes legal right of property or ownership in (generic) data in (almost) any jurisdiction. There are legal concepts that protect certain rights of certain people in certain data, such as privacy laws, copyright, trademarks
, criminal law (e.g. as regards classified government information), etc., but this is not ownership in a legal sense. The article partially tells us so and partially conflates such rights with ownership.
There are sources that use "data ownership" in a completely different, technical rather than legal sense, e.g. to assign data in databases to certain persons or software programs, but that's not what the article is about (or maybe the "responsibilities" section is; difficult to tell). Finally, the article also tells us that there is a "philosophical concept" of data ownership, but doesn't tell us what this is or what the sources for it are.
The article is the creation of a student editor, who, it seems, simply threw together everything they could find in a search for "data ownership", without realizing that the sources they found pertain to wildly different concepts and domains of the social sciences (law, computer science, scientific ethics, etc) and do not add up to a single, unified notion of "data ownership" that the article suggests exists. An article that distinguishes between these concepts is imaginable (although perhaps dubiously notable), but would need a rewrite from scratch. Sandstein 13:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sandstein's assessment of original research by synthesis is correct; I'm not sure whether the article can be saved by content reduction. Perhaps
π, ν) 00:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep/merge Data ownership is a well-established and important concept within data law (21600 hits on Google Scholare: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22data+ownership%22&btnG= ). A standalone article seems entirely possible, or merge to Information privacy law for now. Bondegezou (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See
WP:GHITS
. The problem is that there is no one definition of that concept. Or can you provide one, based on a reliable source? 11:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

See
doi:10.1016/0167-9236(94)00042-4 There are problems with the article, but AfD is not clean-up. Bondegezou (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
So you're now talking about "data ownership" as a concept in programming applying to databases, which is something completely different than what the article is supposed to be about. This is not the topic at issue here. Sandstein 20:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. Data ownership is a rich concept that can be examined from multiple, socio-technical perspectives. The article at present focuses more on legal perspectives. As an associate professor in health informatics, I am drawn to a more technical literature, so that's what I found. Both the paper cited (literally the first of 21,600 hits) and the current article content are about the same thing. Bondegezou (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sandstein's research. This article was the work of a single-user account, literally as a class assignment, and the nom's description of the result as an interdisciplinary word salad is accurate. Nothing here worth saving. --Lockley (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being a class assignment is not a reason for deletion. It's far from being the best article on Wikipedia, but there's some OK material here, and AfD, as ever, is not clean-up. Bondegezou (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Data ownership is a rich topic that can be examined from multiple perspectives. One can talk about legal aspects, one talk about social aspects that feed into those legal aspects, one can talk about technical methods to deliver solutions to managing data ownership problems, one can talk about how technological developments create new issues. Technical and legal aspects are not completely different senses: they are different views on the same issue. Clearly an article on data ownership is possible, however good a start you think the current article is. Here's some materials to demonstrate
WP:GNG
is met:

Fishbein (1991). "Ownership of research data" Academic Medicine. 66(3):129–33
doi:10.1097/00001888-199103000-00002

Stoeklé et al. (2018) "La propriété des données génétiques: De la donnéeà l’information" Med Sci (Paris). 34:1100–1104
doi:10.1051/medsci/2018291

Horner & Minifie (2011). "Research Ethics II: Mentoring, Collaboration, Peer Review, and Data Management and Ownership" Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 54:S330–S345
doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0264)

Van Alstyne, Brynjolfsson & Madnick (1995). "Why not one big database? Principles for data ownership" Decision Support Systems. 15(4):267-284
doi:10.1016/0167-9236(94)00042-4

Parry & Mauthner (2004). "Whose Data are They Anyway?: Practical, Legal and Ethical Issues in Archiving Qualitative Research Data" Sociology. 38(1):139-152
doi:10.1177/0038038504039366

Moodie (2010). "Power, rights, respect and data ownership in academic research with indigenous peoples" Environmental Research, 110:818–820
doi:10.1016/j.envres.2010.08.009

Evans (2011). "Much ado about data ownership" Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 25(1):69-130

Deverka et al. (2017) "Creating a data resource: what will it take to build a medical information commons?" Genome Medicine, 9:84.
doi:10.1186/s13073-017-0476-3

Hoeren (2014). "Big Data and the Ownership in Data: Recent Developments in Europe" European Intellectual Property Review. 12:751-4

Montgomery (2017). "Data sharing and the idea of ownership" New Bioeth. 23(1):81-86.
doi:10.1080/20502877.2017.1314893

Demster 2012 "Data ownership evolves with technology." J AHIMA. 83(9):52-3, 59.

Cleary, Jackson & Walter (2013) "Research data ownership and dissemination: is it too simple to suggest that 'possession is nine-tenths of the law'?" J Clin Nurs. 22(15-16):2087-9.
doi:10.1111/jocn.12140 Bondegezou (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't contest that there are a lot of sources that include the string "data ownership", and that an article (or more likely several) is possible to reflect the wildly different perspectives that various fields have about this topic. But the rationale for deletion is that the current article is worse than having no article at all because it is incompentently written original research; any recreation would need to start from scratch. See
WP:TNT. Sandstein 11:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The list above is not "sources that include the string "data ownership"". I have reviewed each of those articles. They are articles substantially about data ownership, as per GNG criteria. They do not "reflect [...] wildly different perspectives": they reflect complementary and consistent perspectives. Plenty of the current article is correct and well referenced. You did not previously claim
WP:TNT standard. TNT is for a page "beyond fixing". TNT notes that "Copyright violations and extensive cases of advocacy and undisclosed paid sock farms are frequently blown up." This isn't anything like those. Bondegezou (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Complex topic and potentially a WP article in the future, however for this verion,
WP:NUKEIT. Britishfinance (talk) 23:03, 9 February 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 05:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Descent characters

List of The Descent characters (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)

Don't need a standalone list for a film and its sequel that just regurgitates plot details. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Unsourced, and probably largely unsourceable beyond basic details that belong in the film articles. A separate article on the characters in two films is excessive. --Michig (talk) 08:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. We don't need a separate character article for two movies.

Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 17:23, 2 February 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_February_2&oldid=1142224593"

[1] New Sexual Violence Study Findings Have Been Reported from Southern Illinois University. (2011). Women's Health Weekly, 162.

[2] Murphy, J. (1987). Naming the Violence: Speaking Out About Lesbian Battering. Off Our Backs, 17(2), 18.

[3] Savona, J. (1996). Lesbians on the French stage: From homosexuality to Monique Wittig's lesbianization of the theatre. Modern Drama, 39(1), 132-155.

[4] Stuart, J. (2006). In another bracket: Trans acceptance in lesbian utopia. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 10(1-2), 215-229.