Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 16

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 15 January 17 January >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Allama Syed Zeeshan Haider Jawadi

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 contains only one source, and doesn't show a significant claim to notability. The creator has also admitted that the subject is his grandfather in the licensing rationale on

WP:COI issue. Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs assesment of the sources added to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:47, 16 January 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. Sounds like this could use better sources, and perhaps a title change, but clear consensus to keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mehtab Singh Grewal

Mehtab Singh Grewal (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)

His existence appears to be based on a reference in a single article under a variant name, and a claim in a recently-deleted article that this person was the great great grandfather (cited only to that subect's own web page). Article does not appear to exist in his native language wikipedia. Scott Davis Talk 23:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Scott Davis Talk 01:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per
    Phil Bridger (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per
    WP:LASTING. I did not even dig into the history books, cause these 2 are sufficient reasons for me to keep this. Scott Davis, I understand this was a tough one, the full name might have made it even harder for you. None of the 2 sources mention about the title "Grewal", so it should be dropped from the article title following common name, even if Grewal is a part of his full name. I have also removed the line "He is the great great grandfather of Samraat Joshua Grewal" + other promo stuff that appears to have been added[3] here to save the promo article "Samraat Joshua Grewal" that in spite of the author's extreme efforts, got deleted recently. The site christianyouth.co which is far from reliable didn't even mention the said text.--DBigXrayᗙ 12:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
This article was created by the same author as the great grandson's now-deleted page, and who added the great-grandson bit here (which pops out in the referenced page
WP:SELFPUB anyway). All of his/her edits appear related to that topic, there is no interwiki link to Hindi or Punjabi articles about this person, and few inbound links, hence my doubts of his existence and importance. --Scott Davis Talk 00:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ "Village pays tribute to its son today". Tribune. Tribune News Service. 19 October 2004. Retrieved 17 January 2019.
  2. ^ "Leadership". Christian Youth. Retrieved 2019-01-08.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 12:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see it was a reasonably-sized place. So was he actually a home minister? I still think some independent sources would be better. - Sitush (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Struck to !vote - Sitush (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - (edit conflict) difficult to source further in English but it does look like he had some notable achievements on behalf of the state, whatever his working title may have been. Eg: introducing the mandis. (The book that DBigXray noted isn't usually considered to be reliable, so I haven't looked at that.) - Sitush (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Better sourcing would be nice and clearer discussion and a better article on the state he was minister of. He was a leading figure in the government of a state, that is default sign of notability, period. As long as this is not a hoax we keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 19 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Avery Emison

John Avery Emison (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 wasn't able to find coverage about the subject in reliable sources other than the cited source mentioning his election as Alamo, Tennessee mayor, and a review of his book criticizing Abraham Lincoln's legacy in a source of unclear reliability. Per

WP:GNG. The initial editor also appears to be someone with a clear COI based on their username. signed, Rosguill talk 23:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet
    WP:NPOLITICIAN, there is no sustained coverage of him to establish notability and one of the sources used is literally the author's amazon page. GPL93 (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Comment It would also appear that the subject has used this account to add his books to "further reading" sections of pages as a means of promotion. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Thetown he is mayor of has about 3,000 population. The usual level for coverage is somewhere between 50,000 and 1000,000. DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the population is under 3,000. The guy is a fringe crackpot author. To have an article on such writers we require good sourcing which is lacking here. Even cities over 100,000 you need to both show a mayor with power and generally still need good sourcing. The city I used to live in before I moved to Detroit, Sterling Heights, had a population of 130,000 or more, but we deleted the article on the mayor, since he was really just the well titled city council president with no actual executive power beyond any other council member.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Alamo TN is nowhere near large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, but is referenced nowhere near well enough to get him over
    reliable source coverage in real media, and this isn't showing anything close to enough of that. Bearcat (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - meets neither
    WP:NPOL. Onel5969 TT me 20:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Fails
    WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy Delete. Pointless stub with a possible COI. No one here has even considered a vote for keep, so let's close this soon as noncontroversial. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 04:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His 2 books were published by a real publisher and did get a few mentions as "conspiracy theory," but I only see one book review, in a regional daily. His position as Mayor of of a tiny town does almost nothing to support notability (although I am charmed to have learned not only that there is a town named Alamo, Tennessee, and that it is located in Crockett County). He does get statewide coverage for heading up something called "No on 2," a political campaign to oppose Ammendment 2 in the statewide elections in 21014; and for founding a PAC "John Avery Emison announced The Citizens for Home Rule Political Action Committee’s endorsement of Bobby Wood for ..." inthe 2018 elections. There is more coverage than Nom and editors commenting above seem ot be aware of. Despite conspiracy theory books, he may well become notable if his statewide political activities (quite a few sources beyond what I have mentioned,) continue to attract coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:21, 22 January 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.

SALT is an option if it is created again. RL0919 (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Allan Banford

AfDs for this article:
Allan Banford (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:CREATIVE. Article deleted in 2015 but recreated as a poorly-written promotional piece by two SPA accounts, one of which is based in Hong Kong, where Mr. Banford comes from. Redirects to the artist's former recording company Intec Digital have been repeatedly reverted by the latter SPA account. This is a strange one, as the article is currently about Mr. Banford's DJing and recording career in the 2000s, which is utterly non-notable. However, in the last ten years Mr. Banford has almost completely given up his music career and concentrated on his painting instead, and he appears to be more notable as an artist, although it must be said that reliable sources are thin on the ground here as well. The best source appears to be this interview in Murze magazine [4], although I'm really not sure if Murze qualifies as an RS or not. Even so, it seems to be the only source remotely close to being reliable and independent, and more sources would be required to keep this article. Richard3120 (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails
    WP:NARTIST. Even if Murze is an RS, interviews, as per policy, are primary sources, and cannot be used towards establishing notability.Onel5969 TT me 23:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment - oh, and given the behavior of the SPA editors makes this a very good candidate for
WP:SALT as well.Onel5969 TT me 23:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@Onel5969: I agree, but I can see that it would be likely to be recreated as Allan Banford (artist), or Allan Banford (musician), etc. Richard3120 (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per norm. Also, it seem he has no link to Hong Kong, according to the current version of the article. Or due to GNG or other reason, not appeared in South China Morning Post, the dominant English newspaper of Hong Kong. Matthew hk (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthew hk: The Murze article says he is from Hong Kong but based in London. More baffling is the inclusion of Colombia in the article's infobox – there's absolutely no indication anywhere of his connection with that country. Richard3120 (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i have to correct myself, he had an interview in ta kung pao, but that newspaper was owned by the Central government (or other words under the propaganda department of the communist party) and not many real Hong Kong people read it (but it can freely circulated in China, thus it may have a big audience base), and reputation, well...the same as the hate of central government? Also interview was a primary source. Matthew hk (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found information about when he was a DJ, his music, and his art, but nothing from reliable sources and nothing about him. Murze looks like it started in Aug 2018, so probably not RS. He's listed as an "award winning artist" but no one says what award. As Richard3120 says an article about his art would be much better, but there would still be a dearth of reliable information Aurornisxui (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not appear to pass guidelines: Very little available info. His own website or 'commercial' sites only; plus the Murze coverage as discussed above. Eagleash (talk) 08:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As for the questions if "Murze" is a reliable source: No. It is a source where artists pay a fee to submit their work. If selected, they get to promote themselves and display their works. His "interview," if one wants to call it that, is simply answering the same questionnaire that all the selected artists are asked. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT Blatant vanity article from an SPA editor who has a history of recreating an article for this subject. It seems the editor feels the subject deserves a wiki entry for existence but there is not enough reliable source coverage to make him note worthy. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: what a coincidence, the SPA IP has returned to completely rewrite the article... sadly still without any reliable sources. Richard3120 (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In light of this, I have struck my SALT suggestion above. I agree the new article still fails for not being sourced, but in fairness to the subject he may have notability as an artist, it's just that reliable source coverage is lacking. However, looking over his website he has had a fair number of exhibits. I'm uncertain weather or not that would satisfy WP:ARTIST as my knowledge is in music (which he definitely fails). ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would say creation protection in the article namespace but not draft namespace is appropriate. Other user still able to develop an in-depth draft (with citation) for the subject as a painter, but prevent any low quality draft move to article namespace again. Then people with move rights can move the draft to article. Matthew hk (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems a prime candidate for G11 but in the interest of putting the final nail in the coffin, it should probably finish this AFD. I agree with the salting as they've already attempted to subvert this AFD here. Praxidicae (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, why was this even redirected to Intec Digital to begin with? Praxidicae (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae: as stated above, the subject was formerly signed to that record label, before he became an artist. Richard3120 (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The SPA has dramatically reworded the article since this AfD was opened, but still has provided no reliable independent sources... all the art exhibitions are links to the galleries advertising their events, and all the musical releases are links to the user-generated site Discogs which simply demonstrates existence of the records. The rest is OR and a non-notable event about an accidental photograph of the Queen. The SPA has also attempted to remove the AfD notice several times in an attempt to sabotage the AfD discussion: [5], [6], [7]. Richard3120 (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well i have to file a SPI due to coordinated edits and the alleged sockmaster is blocked already in 2015. Matthew hk (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT please. This is just a heavy promotional effort, with very thin sourcing. I can't find any decent sourcing for the art side in a search, other than the one or two mentioned above. GNG fail. The
    talk) 08:05, 23 January 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. Consensus that these weren't grounds for an AfD (which is the case), and that there is notability established, especially with certain links restored.

(non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Muslim Arbitration Tribunal

Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (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)

Most of the links here are deadlinks. Additionally, the criticism in the controversy section aren't neutral. Someone qualified should review this article for deletion or at least update it. Tastybaldeagle (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are not valid grounds for deleting an article. Eperoton (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A quick glance at the Google Books results linked above shows extensive coverage in independent reliable sources. The issues stated by the nominator are reasons for editing, not deletion.
    Phil Bridger (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly notable topic, needs work though. --Slashme (talk) 07:08, 23 January 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. Consensus seems to be that this should not be deleted, though cleanup may be warranted. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of music considered the worst

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

This article (like all "List of X considered the worst" articles) is incredibly subjective, and easily fails

WP:NPOV
. There is absolutely no way to verify that the music listed herein is universally considered the worst.

Where are the authoritative references? There aren't any. Every single entry here suffers from conformation bias. Someone picks an album they don't like, seeks out references that support them, and ignores the rest. The first entry in this article is Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and it highlights the flaws with this type of article perfectly. That album has run the entire gamut of critical reception - from being called the worst album ever by Melody Maker to being labelled the best by Rolling Stone. It could easily be on this article and the "best music" article...

It only takes one "reference" where somebody calls something the worst or best for it to be eligible for one of these articles. Almost anything could be listed here. They have no place on Wikipedia, and should all be deleted. However, I'm opening the discussion on this one because it's by far the worst.

It's not like there aren't alternatives either. Verifiable articles like List of films with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes exist, and are far more suitable for Wikipedia. Klock101 (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. The equivalent film article has been nominated for deletion 10 times without any consensus to actually do so, so I really don't expect this will close with any result other than retention. Much like the film article, this has a demonstrated inclusion criterion – here, having been described as the "worst ever" by at least one reliable source – which appears to be routinely ignoring in favor of including song and albums that are adjudged merely very bad. Nevertheless, "editors aren't following the list rules" has rarely been deemed a cause for deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is a consensus for these types of articles to exist.
  1. This article has already survived 5 AFDs.
  2. The video game equivalent has survived 6 AFDs
  3. The film equivalent has survived 10 AFDs.
Look, I get it. Editors complain on the talk page off and on about the scope, or that their personal favorite shouldn’t be on the list. But the answer isn’t deletion -
AFD is not cleanup. The answer is improvement. Go to the talk page and propose new, workable inclusion criteria, and get a consensus that supports implementation of them. That’s definitely helped at the video game equivalent a few years ago. Sergecross73 msg me 23:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • It is not. I’ve maintained both off and on for years. They just had a consensus for a different title there. They document the same thing. Sergecross73 msg me 00:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, they shouldn't document the same thing. There may be plenty of overlap between "List of games considered the worst" and "List of games notable for negative reception", but those titles refer to two different things and suggest different inclusion criteria. Klock101 (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great. I look forward to discussing that with you on the talk page, because it’s a cleanup issue, not a deletion argument. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
    WP:OTHERSTUFF does indeed exist, but I would like to see the users above at least attempt to justify this as a concept for an encyclopedia article. All but one of the previous AfDs were held in 2005 and 2006 when Wikipedia standards and processes were quite different, and last was opened nearly nine years ago. Endymion.12 (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@Sergecross73: This clearly doesn't fall under WP:COMMONOUTCOMES, at least not yet, so you can do the hard work of actually justifying this as a fit topic for an encyclopedia entry. Endymion.12 (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what more ludicrous here, citing “common outcomes” on an article that has survived 5 AFDs, or the person who who’s done nothing lecturing the guy who has been fielding edit requests and cleaning up the article here and there for years on putting in more work. Unreal. Sergecross73 msg me 00:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: I cited WP:COMMONOUTCOMES because this genre of article literally isn't listed there. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So what? That means nothing. That’s not a requirement or a valid argument towards deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 13:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - Oh brother, here we go again; just another case of
    WP:IDONTLIKEIT poorly masquerading as a "helpful" (yet succinctly under-educated) contribution. Like Sergecross said, AfD is not cleanup, and in addition, Klock is clearly unable to see that Sgt. Pepper is included at the top of the albums list because all of the entries in the article's sections are sorted in chronological order. If all the other "List of X considered the worst" articles have managed to survive several AfDs, then this one absolutely should as well. Need we say more? I think not. Interlude 65 (Push to talk) 23:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Let's keep
      WP:PERSONAL in mind, shall we? Klock101 (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • @Interlude65: If all the other "List of X considered the worst" articles have managed to survive several AfDs, then this one absolutely should as well Why, actually? Perhaps you didn't bother to actually look over the old AfDs, and didn't notice how old they are. Endymion.12 (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have also entirely missed the point with the Sgt. Pepper comment—the nominator was simply using the first entry as an example, and didn't comment on its location within the article. Endymion.12 (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endymion, actually, I have noticed that those AfDs listed here are old as hell, just so you know. Interlude 65 (Push to talk) 00:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No, this is not a matter of confirmation bias, the music has certainly been "considered the worst". Are those opinions subjective? Yes, that's what makes them opinions, but they've still been "considered" the worst. I cannot imagine having this discussion about a list of films considered the best. Though I don't recall ever looking at the article, I'm sure there are several obvious picks there (Citizen Kane is, I'm sure, is quite well sourced).
The problem with the current list is not the topic, it is the selection criteria. One source is not a good idea. Most similar lists demand at least two. The list of worst films demands several calling it the "worst ever" from a wide spectrum of sources, with a couple of books mentioned specifically as examples.
As for Sgt. Pepper... while I'm not a huge fan, I know it is often presented as one of the best ever (I say it's one of the "most important", rather than "best", but I digress), the inclusion is not (by itself) an indication that the list is garbage. Instead, it is a clear indication that opinions are, by definition, subjective.
Yes, by all means take to the talk page and fix it. If reasonable criteria depopulate the list, that is a different issue and might be a reason to revisit this issue, but we aren't there yet. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fully support increasing the “1 source” inclusion criteria. I think I’m the one who implemented it years ago after starting a discussion and realizing that there there weren’t really any inclusion criteria at all. It was just to implement any standard at all really - one was better than zero. (And honestly if you looked through the talk page archives you’d be shocked to see how many entries were rejected or removed with the 1 source rule. It’s not the best but it kept a lot of garbage out.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly was the point of going out of your way to highlight the fact that I made a typo in "confirmation"? Klock101 (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
”Confirmation” and “conformation” are different words with different meanings. I imagine he was clarifying your typo for his arguments sake? Sergecross73 msg me 20:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, it might need some work but deletion isn't the answer. Even if it's a list of opinions, most of them are well sourced and verifiable by sales numbers or polls.This article is in nobody's way and gives a good view of the general publics opinion. Oxygene7-13 (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the arguments of Sergecross73. Dooligan (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Clean Up - I have perused this particular article for years. It is indeed getting a bit outdated and messy (formatting), but as has been said several times above, the AfD process is not for cleanup. The article is loaded with reliable sources from pro music critics, and the lead paragraph clearly states that the list is based on the opinions of critics. The claim that the article is too "subjective" and should be deleted for that reason also doesn't hold water, because it is not subjective in itself but is about the subjective opinions of critics. It should be viewed as an article about the history of rock criticism, and if so, it passes the rules. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I wasn't sure what to expect when I went to read the article. Fly-by-night articles, maybe. But that's not the case. Sources are reliable and verifiable. BBC, The Guardian, NYT, The Independent, The Chicago Tribune, etc. I do think guidelines should be established for this kind of article but that belongs on the talk page, not AfD. Aurornisxui (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly this is a notable topic, reasonably written, and quite well sourced. -- Paleorthid (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and similarly named lists. Unclear inclusion criteria. It doesn't include any work before the 1950s because nobody thought there was bad music back then? Only English music is bad? Џ 01:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • English Wikipedia. 2A02:C7F:8EA3:B00:2173:4694:5C06:34E7 (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Beyond that, it can be difficult to find reliable sources that he’s requesting. You don’t often find sources that declare songs from the 1930s as the worst song ever. Nor would an English editor be likely to come across the worst foreign language song unless it’s sonething massive like
        WP:NOTCLEANUP violation. Sergecross73 msg me 02:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • Keep Clearly a notable subject, passes
    WP:GNG by a wide margin. Criteria and content disputes should be worked out on the talk page but AfD is not the venue for that.LM2000 (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep and clean. There are hundreds of sources online about the worst songs and albums. Let's just limit ourselves to widely-panned releases. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no doubt this is a problematic article given its random criteria on how the songs and albums are selected. Despite the argument that about it is an issue about cleaning up, there is no evidence that those in the talk page are interested in cleaning up, for example the complaint about using Mars (which everyone in the UK knows is a confectionery company) for opinion on music is blithely dismissed because it was reported on the BBC, completely ignoring the point of the complaint. I can see many other entries that don't belong there, for example "Baby" by Justin Bieber as the most disliked video (which is not what this article is about - "most disliked" is not the same as "worst", and "video" is not the same as "music"). Whatever happens with this AfD, I can see many more AfDs on this article because of the refusal to fix the article by those involved. Hzh (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" entry uses public opinion, not the opinion of Mars ("a listener poll organised by Mars"). Bieber's "Baby" clearly has a Time Out poll supporting it as the worst. You're ignoring what's in front of your eyes. Dooligan (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What you’re describing is unfortunately a problem with Wikipedia/AFD in a general sense. It happens a lot. People will go through the minimal effort to try to get it deleted, but few will go through the bigger effort of working towards improving it. I’ve maintained the article for years, and remain there to bounce ideas off of on the talk page, it some decides they do want to work on it though. Sergecross73 msg me 20:02, 23 January 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. clpo13(talk) 21:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naijapadis

Naijapadis (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 online entertainment website with Alexa rank of almost 9m. Was previously deleted under CSD from me but the author restored page, and contested a

Fram (talk) Running a full AfD to resolve as the page may need salting. Britishfinance (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 22:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 22:28, 16 January 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. clpo13(talk) 20:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fly Divine

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

No third party coverage of airline beyond what seems like press releases. May not meet notability criteria.

ping me) 19:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

AFD of airline articles

Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 19:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 19:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 19:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 19:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 19:22, 16 January 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. clpo13(talk) 20:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luwang Air

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

May not meet notability criteria. No third party coverage of airline. Been tagged with "needs citation for verification" since December 2017.

ping me) 19:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

AFD of airline articles


Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 19:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 19:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 19:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 19:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 19:20, 16 January 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 by admin

ping me) 23:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Star Air (India)

Star Air (India) (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:CRYSTALBALLing
. Not flying yet. Also no third party coverage of airline beyond articles saying that yuppa, it will fly soon.

Article edited by HiFlyStarAir (talk · contribs) so serious case of COI. Possible spam article.

AFD of airline articles

ping me) 19:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 19:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 19:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 19:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 19:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 19:17, 16 January 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. clpo13(talk) 20:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Screenology

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

No indication of notability per

WP:ORG. Google search comes up with about 100 results, none of which discuss the company in significant detail. ... discospinster talk 18:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 20:38, 16 January 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. clpo13(talk) 20:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delacey

Delacey (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)

Singer not notable. The only rise to fame is singing the "Dream it Possible" song by Huawei. No third party coverage of singer beyond interviews.

ping me) 17:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 17:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 17:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 22:20, 20 January 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. clpo13(talk) 20:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Wagner (pastor)

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

Written as an advertisement (by "John1427" who has only written and edited articles relating to John Wagner (likely himself)). Single source with questionable reputability. Doesn't seem to fit notability guidelines.

talk) 17:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Noah Howard, I just wanted to let you know that John is a very common name. I am not John Wagner himself, my real identity is someone else who uses a bible verse as a tag. Please show other evidence that it is actually the pastor writing about himself. I am actually going to change my username due to your accusation. It feels terrible to be accused of self-vanity. John Wagner is a pastor of the 38th largest megachurch in the country. He has hosted Creflo Dollar and hosts a congregation of ten thousand weekly in New Jersey. The source will be changed in order to fit guidelines. Yours sincerely John1427 (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]
@
talk) 18:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]


Dear Noah Howard and Jmertel23, Its great Noah you were helping. I understand now Wikipedia standards on notability. I will give you more than one source. His cocaine addiction is referenced here.[1]
Yours sincerely John1427 (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-2003-06-02-0306010365-story.html
  • Delete - This fails
    WP:GNG and is probably COI. Skirts89 (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 21:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

It's a Deeper Issue.
Georgia Pastor

WP:PEOPLE instead of men who serve and follow the LORD our GOD. Resolve as you wish. John1427 (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

It's about notability. The subject of this article has not received enough reliable media or academic coverage to garner it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for religious morality. If you cannot accept that or abide by the Wikipedia's standards or understand that perspective then I highly recommend you find another outlet. This is not a place to evangelize or project what you perceive to be moral. Please see
WP:NOBLECAUSE. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk) 00:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Noahhoward: after looking at his page, not entirely sure that the sources for Jentezen Franklin's page are enough to establish GNG either. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete per WP:Notability. The 2003 Sun Sentinel stories mentioning the pastor ([12], [13], [14]) are about incidents that seem to have gained notability because of their controversial nature (the pastor getting divorced, resigning from his church, starting a new one, etc.), not because the pastor was notable himself. — Zenadix (talk) 08:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and probably also Block John1427 per
    WP:NOTHERE (repeatedly changing Jesus in a manner that does not inspire confidence). Jeppiz (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@Jeppiz: It would appear that he hasn't heeded to warnings about making unconstructive edits to Jesus and it he does not care for Wikipedia's policies so I think it may be appropriate to Block John1427 as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:07, 21 January 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: created by a sock of the creator of the previously deleted version. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Chandran

Pradeep Chandran (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 was deleted in 2017 and the only changes since are 3 non-notable bit parts in 2018. No RS cited to establish notability. Atsme✍🏻📧 17:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:42, 16 January 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. clpo13(talk) 21:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jovial (watch)

Jovial (watch) (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 to me, especially considering offline sources don't seem to give much coverage either. SITH (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 16:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 16:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources about Jovial in the searches I did. Cunard (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 19:09, 16 January 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. clpo13(talk) 20:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Stassi D. Cramm

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet

WP:BASIC. Not finding multiple instances of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to qualify notability. North America1000 15:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:41, 16 January 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. clpo13(talk) 20:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

David R. Brock

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

Non-notable subject that fails

WP:BASIC, as per source searches, including custom searches. Furthermore, the article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not confer notability. North America1000 15:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:41, 16 January 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. clpo13(talk) 21:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KC International Airlines

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

May not meet notability guidelines. Little to no third party coverage beyond "yes it exists".

Previously deleted at AFD but article re-created.

ping me) 16:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

AFD of airline articles

Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 16:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 16:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 16:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 16:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
(talk) (contribs) 16:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 16:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Which was practically why I nominated it for deletion in the first place, it existing or having an aircraft is not relevant. It being a fully functioning airline that has received significant coverage is. Hell I am pretty sure I even pointed out at some point how having one aircraft does not really make you much of an airline (and here is why).Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Slatersteven, if the airline is not operating then it can be categorized as defunct airline. If fleet size is not a measure, then a lot of articles like this (one aircraft), this (zero aircraft and not operating), this (one aircraft) and this (zero aircraft and not operating) should be nominated as well for AfD. Let us not be particularly over critical on this article. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please read
wp:otherstuffexists.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
ping me) 19:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment – Support salting the earth following (inevitable) deletion. ––
    (talk) (contribs) 07:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It's interesting that, not a single one of them indicates it actually has a regular scheduled service. DGG ( talk ) 09:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, found this on their Twitter https://twitter.com/KCAIRLINES/status/1053201389499740160
But it seems to be out of date https://twitter.com/KCAIRLINES/status/1069399751471226880 --
ping me) 13:01, 17 January 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 Wrong venue. Drafts go to

(non-admin closure) CoolSkittle (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Draft:Doris the Pliosaurus

Draft:Doris the Pliosaurus (edit | [[Talk:Draft:Doris the Pliosaurus|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has no references and inline citations. See

WP:REFBEGIN to properly cite articles. You can again start creating your article by providing genuine references. SouravDas1998t@lk to me? 15:48, 16 January 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. Consensus after two relists appears to be in favor of keeping the article on the strength of the sources provided during discussion. clpo13(talk) 20:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liv Warfield

Liv Warfield (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)

Needs evidence of meeting

WP:MUSICBIO: There are hints of notability from what links here, but the article is the kind of self-conscious promo bio that usually indicates someone trying a lot harder on Wikipedia than a notable performer needs to. Closeapple (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs assesment of the sources Michig posted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:01, 16 January 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 MNL48. clpo13(talk) 20:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sheki Arzaga

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

This article is about a singer from an idol group,

notability independent of the group. A redirect to the group was reverted so here we are. Whpq (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    talk) 17:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to MNL48 as a member of a musical group. An article can be recreated if future coverage warrants one. feminist (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    WP:NBAND, members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. The article can be recreated when she has achieved notability as an individual. Hzh (talk) 15:57, 23 January 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. General consensus.

(non-admin closure) Nightfury 11:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Hedkandi

Hedkandi (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)

Advertisement and catalog, sourced to its own website Orange Mike | Talk 13:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep 8-( Disappointed to see a name from long ago once again reduced to such a lack of WP:BEFORE.
This is a record label with a 20 year history and a prolific back catalogue. We're not asking that nominators listen to it, but at least recognise that others do. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I used to see big posters for this all the time in the Underground but I see that its brand image of "Hed Kandi girl" has changed now. See Campaign for an example of coverage. Andrew D. (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: before the label was bought by Ministry of Sound and completely stripped of its identity and blanded out, Hedkandi (or Hed Kandi, as it used to be called) produced one of the most popular series of dance compilation albums of the early 2000s. This article from Mixmag gives a good summary of their achievements [26]: UK top ten singles (here's the chart history of StoneBridge for example, showing their two top ten singles on Hed Kandi [27]), and number-one albums on the UK Dance Albums Chart [28], [29]. Here's an 2002 article from Music Week (the UK equivalent of Billboard) discussing Hed Kandi's growing profile at the time [30]. And there's bound to be coverage of the label and their albums in print versions of Mixmag and DJ Mag from the early 2000s. Richard3120 (talk) 20:54, 16 January 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. clpo13(talk) 20:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Jim Hedges (composer)

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

PROD Removed. Article is lacking significant coverage that is now required for

WP:GNG and my web searches turn up other people, I didn't find anything useful or interesting for Hedges. Govvy (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:08, 17 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan Motiwala

Irfan Motiwala (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 does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines NACTOR and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:01, 16 January 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.

π, ν) 23:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Block of Wikipedia in Venezuela


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

This article is basically a

WP:NOTNEWS violation. There is already a section on Venezuela at Censorship of Wikipedia, and that seems to be an appropriate level of coverage for this rather than a standalone article. Number 57 11:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I'll happily merge with
2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis and Censorship in Venezuela if deemed not needed, but we do have a page for Block of Wikipedia in Turkey, and the article on Spanish Wikipedia this is a translation of is getting a lot of pageviews and edits. Kingsif (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I'd also support the Turkish article being merged/deleted. The fact that something that's still in the news cycle is getting a lot of views/edits doesn't have any meaning in terms of long-term notability. Number 57 12:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do not think NOTNEWS applies, because this seems to meet
WP:RAPID and considering deletion later if lasting coverage doesn't occur. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 12:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment please somebody fix the sources to include author, website, and additional information. --
talk) 10:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I should mention that a section in the Spanish Wikipedia was started that includes comments of both the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Venezuela, as well as Nicolás Maduro's comments on the edit war. --
    talk) 21:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Article updated Kingsif (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unconvinced by OP's reasoning in regards to WP:NOTNEWS. Part of having an article should take into account the historical significance of an event. Whichever way the crisis resolves, the censorship of CANTV is a major part in regards to it. If someone in 2024, per say, was looking for information on the Presidential crisis, the Wikipedia article edits along with the CANTV ban are major points in it. Since it's ongoing as we speak, I say let the article stand and we can revisit it at a later time once the dust settles.--Guiletheme (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A significant event, like Guiletheme I'm not persuaded either about the NOTNEWS claim. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per reasons above. (Iuio (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep clearly meets
    WP:NEVENT. Balkywrest (talk) 11:35, 22 January 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. clpo13(talk) 20:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Shradha Agarwaal

Shradha Agarwaal (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 do not believe this individual meets

WP:NBIO as I can find no substantial coverage of her in reliable independent sources. I am basing this nomination on the article which states that she was chairperson of young FICCI Ladies Organisation Kolkata for one year but does not mention other achievements. She just seems to be a successful local businesswoman. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:13, 16 January 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. clpo13(talk) 20:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Tiramisu (TV series)

Tiramisu (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)

Fails

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:14, 16 January 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. clpo13(talk) 20:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire

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

No evidence of notability outside primary sources. Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It's published >100 volumes of material on local history over a period of nearly 150 years. There are plenty of references to them in catalogues in various libraries and archives, they have a worldcat ref. I'm not sure that half a dozen stories about it in the Warrington Guardian would be good evidence of notability. The article has a template asking for improved refs, and that's enough. Mccapra (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter how much they have published, what matters is do RS give a damn about it. Also catalog entries are not enough to establish notability, only existence. The Warrington Guardian might do it, but only might. Press releases or trivial coverage would not be enough. Please read
wp:n.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The reputable sources do not have to be online. Rathfelder (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No but they have to be cited in the article and verifiable. So what are these sources?Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources do not have to be cited in the article to establish notability. The question is whether they exist.
    WP:ARTN Rathfelder (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
True, but we have to be able to verify them (see
wp:n]). Any claim not sources to an RS can be removed, If I were to remove all such claims how much of this article would be left?Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Then I ask again to include these sources (and no adverts do not count). Also coverage has to be in depth. Please read
wp:nSlatersteven (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I am puzzled as to why this Society's page should be deleted when nobody seems to feel the same about others (e.g. Bristol Record Society, London Record Society, or any of the others with links from the Text Publication Societies page), which are remarkably similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petercotgreave (talk • contribs) 08:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. The effective way to argue for "keep" is always to add reliable sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:34, 23 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Latin American Network Information Center

Latin American Network Information 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)

I prodded it with 'Seems to fail

WP:Notability (websites)/WP:Notability (media).' only to notice it was prodded a few years back. While the prod was removed, I am not convinced this website is notable - no in-depth coverage, sources are mostly primary or in-passing. At best, if there is no consensus for hard delete, I would suggest a soft delete through redirect and perhaps some minor merge to the University of Texas at Austin page. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:20, 16 January 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. author request

(non-admin closure) buidhe 16:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Jason Lim

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence of satisfying

WP:CREATIVE. The draft was declined twice at AfC, then cut-and-paste moved to article space by LillyAndalucia who appears to have a conflict of interest. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:20, 16 January 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. There's some agreement in the discussion that this is a borderline case, but there's no clear consensus on whether the page meets policy even after two relists. clpo13(talk) 20:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Maniam

Aaron Maniam (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 admit this is a borderline case, he gets a few mentions, but not enough in-depth coverage to meet

WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 01:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m gonna go with a Weak delete on this one. Trillfendi (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This seems to be sigcov 1 2. FOARP (talk) 08:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While the first is borderline non-trivial, the second is a promotional bio, and doesn't qualify for
    WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 11:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:20, 16 January 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. clpo13(talk) 20:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Linda S. Reeves

AfDs for this article:
Linda S. Reeves (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 continues to fail

WP:BASIC
. Five of the sources in the article are primary, which do not qualify notability, and the remaining two do not consist of significant coverage:

  • [31] – Consists of five very short sentences about the subject.
  • [32] – has a name check and three short sentences.

Searches for independent, reliable sources are providing no better to qualify notability per Wikipedia's standards. North America1000 04:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:19, 16 January 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. If anyone wants to create a redirect per the previous AFD, they're more than welcome to, but consensus in this discussion is to delete. clpo13(talk) 20:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia P. Pinegar

AfDs for this article:
Patricia P. 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 continues to fail

WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources has only provided fleeting passing mentions and name checks. The primary sources in the article do not qualify notability, and arguments for article retention in the previous AfD discussion were based upon personal opinion, rather than Wikipedia's notability guidelines. North America1000 04:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep multiple secondary sources have been identified. If it is not kept, it should be merged with the article on her husband, not deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do those sources provide significant coverage or fleeting passing mentions? Sources being identified does not create automatic notability; there needs to be significant coverage. North America1000 16:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the secondary sources aren't independent and only passing mentions come up in ProQuest. We just don't have a notability policy specific to religious figures or for schools less notable than universities. originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 18:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Community consensus is that LDS leaders have to pass
    talk) 21:41, 22 January 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 and redirect to Kip McKean#International Christian Church. I am ignoring the SPAs !votes. Nevertheless, there seems to be consensus that this should be deleted. I am leaving a redirect as this might be a possible search term. Randykitty (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Christian Church

AfDs for this article:
International Christian Church (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 nominate the page for deletion, and give the following reason: No academic supporting sources to establish page need. Historically been a battle ground among former and current members using exclusively primary sources. (WP:DEL1, WP:DEL6, WP:DEL7, WP:DEL8, WP:DEL14) Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
missfortune 03:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
missfortune 03:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep This is a notable group with a founder who has his own page. I am sure reliable sources will soon turn up as they did with McKeans previous church. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JB , That's just the thing: of the 21 citations the founder has, only 4 or 5 are legitimate non-self-sourced. His former church is the same story, only 6-7 legitimate citations out of the nearly 100-self-sourced. If the ICC after 12 years was worthy of an academic page, it would have more than 1 valid citation. Until that day, deletion is the only reasonable option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coachbricewilliams28 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems fairly straightforward. This topic lacks meaningful credible insight. Ronald C Harding 00:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronaldcharding (talk • contribs)
You guys may want to go and read WP:MEAT before continuing, as two of these editors have no other contributions outside of this topic and the other two are members of the church, as per the talk pages of the founder and his church being discussed. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jb, no one is sock puppet in here, and anyone who knows you, knows the reason why you want this page to remain. Please don't sit there and pretend like it is academic. This page has existed for half the time the church has, and there is only one academic source. Affiliation can be an issue, but not in all cases ( hence why I've never cared about your Icoc editing history.) Either someone needs to come up with some real citations, or the page has to go. Since there are no existing academic sources on this church, this isn't about sentiment, it's about the standards at Wiki. This page doesn't cut it. I just has no merit. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)×[reply]
  • Comment I've been involved disputes on this page before; note that this is not the somewhat-related group
    π, ν) 04:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
To clarify, it's not that some don't "like" the article. It's that when the article was at it's HIGHEST QUALITY IN MAY, it was modeled after the ICOC page yet somehow, despite the presumed accuracy of the sources, wikiGnomes still rejected the page with no objection to the Icoc page's 80+ selfsourced links. Same for the Kip McKean page; it is 95% self sourced. If a pile of academic sources existed or comes about, this page could be revived. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)––[reply]
meatpuppetry
involved in this AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The relisting is appreciated however the WP:Meat was already cleared as "unrelated" by Bbb23. The decision seems beyond obvious. I'm not certain why the delay. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I missed something, but I see no evidence that there is no concern over
meatpuppetry JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
It was discussed in another page; hence why no one is pushing it.Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input by established editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:07, 16 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nongkhae F.C.

Nongkhae F.C. (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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability#Club notability. Nongkhae F.C. has not played in a national league, the two leagues given are both regional, 2016 Thai Division 3 Tournament Central Region & 2018 Thailand Amateur League Bangkok Metropolitan Region, and the club has not played in the Thai FA Cup. Cabayi (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:53, 21 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kannur Vishwan

Kannur Vishwan (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 the protagonist for a movie that hasn't even been released yet. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 19:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 19:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 19:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Redirect to the article on the film Janaadhipan. Does not meet the notability requirements for a separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not a notable fictional character and a search term that would just disappoint readers as they would expect a whole article on him Atlantic306 (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The movie is barely notable and is expected to sink without a trace. The character is not expected to be out of the ordinary in any regard, and the references do not suggest otherwise. Jupitus Smart 17:30, 21 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orchid Software

Orchid Software (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:SIGCOV. A search returns several other Orchid Software companies (Spa admin, laser cutting, and one in the Caribbean) with this Orchid only returning its own website and this wiki page. Cabayi (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - unable to find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Fails notability. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - like most small to medium software companies, it's just not notable enough. They may sell to large clients but that doesn't make them independently notable. Can't find any real reliable references or coverage. Canterbury Tail talk 13:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - Thank you for this advice. Having updated the article it now includes more examples of notability than similar other articles. Website links have been removed. Section on Funding History was removed. I have tried, please reconsider AfD argument. Note a redirect from Oak Intranet may be required. User:Adriantaylor2 23:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The newly added citations don't meet
    WP:CORPDEPTH, and sources outside of the article are no better. — Newslinger talk 11:53, 20 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RamaGardens

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

No claim of notability, no references for ten years. Google search doesn't turn up anything. This does not appear to be a village or town, which would presumably be notable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 08:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 08:32, 16 January 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 deleted by

talk) 23:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Heartbeat (DJ Debayan Official Album)

Heartbeat (DJ Debayan Official Album) (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 to meet notability requirements as per

WP:NALBUM. No sign of independent coverage in reliable sources. Initially prodded however this was removed by anon IP editor without explanation. Greyjoy talk 06:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:25, 16 January 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. Fails

WP:NCORP due to sources being insufficiently reliable, independent, and/or significant in their coverage. RL0919 (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

EverlyWell

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

Non-notable company with no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@Mohamed Ouda: I dropped a message on your talk page regarding paid editing, and you need to respond. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 05:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:Reference bombed with a large number of low quality sources. What are the two or three best sources for demonstrating notability? The first three are not good enough, and I doubt the rest are worth careful examination. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@
WP:RSP. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
AFD is not cleanup, it is true, but existence does not mandate inclusion if the company is not notable per
WP:NCORP. It is not the number of or verifiability of the sources cite that matter, rather it is the quality and depth.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I have struck this !vote. User has been checkuser blocked for sockpuppetry Voceditenore (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOCKing aren't going to help much with the AfD's fire test when combined with active moppings. DBigXrayᗙ
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn with no other oppose votes.

π, ν) 23:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Philosopher nicknames

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

While this list seems well-intentioned, I can't find any evidence that the topic of "philosopher nicknames" is notable. Individual nicknames can be sourced and may be relevant to mention in the article about that person or use as a redirect. The sources provided are all in that vein: so-and-so was nicknamed such-and-such. Unfortunately, the combined list of nicknames or the concept of giving nicknames to philosophers does not seem to be something that has been discussed in a way that would satisfy

WP:GNG for the topic. RL0919 (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC) Clearly others don't share my concern, so no reason to waste more time on it. I withdraw the nomination. --RL0919 (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Agreed. May we rename the page now, or should we wait to see whether we decide to keep it? DougHill (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Best not to move pages during AfDs for clarity. Let the process run and then rename to "List of nicknames of philosophers". I think it would be great to see this article "grow" (and the comments below show there is an intellectual interest here in doing this). Once it gets bigger, then Andrew D. comments of merging into the bigger "List of philosophers" is worth considering (if it fits easily in that table!). Britishfinance (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge The current content is weak – it doesn't even have the famous Plato – a nickname bestowed by his wrestling coach. But there's definitely something to be said about the various names and titles used by and for the many philosophers: see Names of Ancient Greek Philosophers, for example. It might be sensible to merge this into the copious other lists that we have, as an aid to navigation – see Lists of philosophers. Andrew D. (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure how to deal with the Plato#Name issue on a list. But if we keep the page, then I'll have a go at it. DougHill (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to "List of nicknames of philosophers" (or perhaps, following one example, "List of philosophers by nickname"?) per the above. It's definitely incomplete, missing the weeping and laughing philosophers for a start, but I think it's legitimate as a navigational tool. XOR'easter (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; it's just a start. I'll go ahead and add these 2. DougHill (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it seems to meet the list criteria, per Britishfinance's opinion above. What a fun little list! Quaint at this point, but well-sourced and interesting in that obscure way so many good Wikipedia lists are. Hopefully it serve as a starting point for more additions, irregardless of the exact topic name or if it is nestled into a parent topic. 31.54.34.61 (talk) 05:28, 20 January 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. Disregarding IP's comment, general consensus. Further discussion to the talk page please.

(non-admin closure) Nightfury 11:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Steemit

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

No evidence of notability. Some text is very advertorial;. One ref is just an analytical chart of value, one is Wired and one is OR. Nothing that gets close to

WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   02:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment(Now keep, per
reliable sources
, but aren't included in the article. Not enough to merit a keep on its own, but worth considering. Articles such as:
The Guardian writes: "Steemit is similar to social media website Reddit and Facebook in the way it operates, encouraging users to post and share content. However, Steemit is also powered by blockchain, the underlying technology that anchors digital currencies such as bitcoin.", and contains some information about their history.[1]
Reuters writes: "Steemit essentially is a website that rewards or pays users who post content that gets multiple thumbs up from the site’s participants. The reward given is the steem currency.".[2] It's worth noting that both this article and the one from The Guardian, as well as a few others I've found such as this one from the Observer seem to all quote the same interview with Ned Scott, the co-founder of Steemit.
Techcrunch writes: "Steemit, a distributed app designed to reward content creators, has laid off 70 percent of its staff, citing “the weakness of the cryptocurrency market, the fiat returns on our automated selling of STEEM diminishing, and the growing costs of running full Steem nodes.", and "Steemit became one of the first working decentralized applications and allowed users to submit content and pay content creators."[3]
There's a lot of Cryptocurrency articles that should never have been created, and in this form Steem is one of them; but out of the junk out there, this one might be worth cleaning up. Dr-Bracket (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/12/steem-digital-currency-steemit-value-soars
  2. ^ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-currency-steem/digital-currency-steem-soars-to-more-than-150-million-in-value-in-two-weeks-idUSKCN0ZS2MF
  3. ^ https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/28/steemit-a-decentralized-sharing-system-lays-of-70-of-staff/
  • Keep - sources prove notability:
Balkywrest (talk) 08:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marginal - there's a few sources that say "oh this thing exists". I just culled it strictly to RSes and removed some puffery - David Gerard (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I incorporated some sources offered by
    WP:GNG. I think we just need to keep a keen eye on these type of crypto articles as they are often targets to promo content. (aka, buy some tokens and then come and pump it on wikipedia) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Some academic sources:
The Paradoxical Effects of Blockchain Technology on Social Networking Practices from International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco 2018
Sustainable Growth and Token Economy Design: The Case of Steemit published in Sustainability (journal)
Can Social News Websites Pay for Content and Curation? The SteemIt Cryptocurrency Model published in Journal of Information Science Џ 17:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No policy based argument made by this IP. Balkywrest (talk) 15:04, 20 January 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wong Chung-Yoh

Wong Chung-Yoh (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:NOTINHERITED, no notability aside from his purported relationship with Chatan Yara. This article seems to be copied and pasted from this webpage [33]
(not a reliable source IMO), which states: "Wong chung-yoh was a 17th century teacher of a style of martial arts known as xingyiquan. Located in Fuzhou in the Fukien Province of China, he was notable for being the teacher of Chatan Yara." The only difference seems to be "16th century" vs. "17th century": notice that Chatan Yara's article, also clearly copied and pasted from that webpage, likewise uses different dates for him.

So who is this "Wong Chung-Yoh"? This source, which seems more reliable [34], states: "Chatan Yara (北谷 屋良) (1668–1756), who had in turn studied xingyiquan and qigong in Fujian province under a teacher called Gong Xiangjun." "Gong Xiangjun" is actually the Chinese pinyin romanization of Kūsankū, who lived in the 18th century (Gong Xiangjun/Kūsankū is not a personal name, and may be derived from the Fukienese reading of 拳聖君, "Kung Sing Kun", the "Holy Master of Fists".) I can't find anything connecting "Wong Chung-Yoh" with Gong Xiangjun/Kūsankū, although I found some sources that suggest Gong Xiangjun/Kūsankū's real name may be Fang Qingjin (方卿縉), a martial artist whose name appears in Chinese sources. See [35] Timmyshin (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete - no indication of notability. -Zanhe (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only claim of notability is for being a teacher of Chatan Yara, but notability is not inherited (and it's not clear that Yara is WP notable). The only sources are passing mentions in sources of dubious reliability. For example, newsfinder.org, which published the longer article on Yara is, says its "intention is to provide an opportunity for academics and non academics, here and abroad, to publish their opinions, critiques, reviews, works of art, literary creations, music performances, and research articles" with no evidence of editorial oversight. It has the same reliability as any other blog. Papaursa (talk) 22:02, 22 January 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.

(non-admin closure) Sheldybett (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Power Ledger

Power Ledger (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 as a non-notable company. R2d232h2 (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in
WP:ORGIND I get, and I can see how it would apply to some of the refs. Pegnawl (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
(All due respect; I just haven't seen that rationale applied when it comes to sniffing out notability - content wise, absolutely, but that's a separate matter.) Pegnawl (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly stated in
WP:NCORP that "dependent coverage" based primarily on press statements of future aspirations does not count towards notability. I would not have nominated it for deletion if I was not sure that there was nothing of relevance available. R2d232h2 (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't see anything about futuristic or aspirational press on that policy page, clearly stated or otherwise. Are you arguing that all of the press cited above is pulled from press releases, press kits or interviews, and therefore fails to meet NCORP? That I would buy, but that is a different argument than 'independent press about future-looking statements and company aspirations automatically fail SIGCOV,' which is how I read the above, and I find no support for this in policy. Pegnawl (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just where do you think all the claims of future aspirations came from in these stories, if not from company statements? - David Gerard (talk) 10:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Journalists write about future tense topics all the time. They pull from company statements and include (hopefully) more reporting to bring context to a story. I was thinking that, should Bloomberg, Fortune, AFR and others be so compelled to write about Power Ledger's activities, planned or otherwise, that brings notability to the subject. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the spectrum of churnalism in Notability discussions, pardon the ignorance. Pegnawl (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First book: That "Martin, David" or "David Martin" who helped write that chapter is the co-founder of Power Ledger. How am I sure he's the right one? Scroll up on Google Books to the beginning of the chapter on page 137 and he's labeled as such.
Second book: Writer1 is Mark van Rijmenam who currently calls himself a "#BigData & #Blockchain Influencer" on his verified Twitter account, though the earliest archive.org snapshot from 2014 has no mention of "blockchain." It appears to have been added between July 2016 and November 2016. His website calls itself "the one-stop source for big data, blockchain and artificial intelligence." A recent article they published is titled "What Big Data and UFOs Have in Common". The current front page article with the title in big letters is "3 Major Ways the Internet of Things is Revolutionizing E-Commerce", written by a guy with an
SEO company. Writer2 is Philippa Ryan who seems more reliable, but she joined this Australian blockchain association
along with the co-founder of Power Ledger, Jemma Green.
Third book: Written by Martin Anda who has said nice things about Power Ledger's involvement with his university.[36][37] Џ 02:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The
WP:NCORP.

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Examples of substantial coverage says: "Examples of substantial coverage that would generally be sufficient to meet the requirement" include "... a book passage ... focusing on a product or organization". I have provided book passages including a passage in a Routledge book and significant coverage in a Springer Nature book.

That Power Ledger has received significant coverage in two books from reputable publishers strongly establishes notability.

Fair point that the first book source is not independent because a co-founder is among the 13 co-authors of the chapter.

I do not consider the other two book sources to be disqualified. They were published in reputable publishers and the accuracy of their content has not been questioned.

For the second book, that Mark van Rijmenam tweeted about an article his company wrote about big data and UFO sightings (that included research The Economist did about how UFO sightings happen during "drinking hours") does not affect the reliability of the book. That his Twitter profile did not have a mention of "blockchain" until 2016 also does not affect the reliability of the book. That Philippa Ryan is a member of the same blockchain association as one of the cofounders does not make her not independent of the subject.

For the third book, that Martin Anda "has said nice things about Power Ledger's involvement with his university" does not make him not independent of the subject.

Cunard (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

]
  • Keep – Meets
    WP:CORPDEPTH per an overall source review. Many of the articles are bylined and written by staff writers that have no connection with the firm. Statements that the available sources are reprints of press releases, without qualification or proof of said claims, is opinion-based conflation, rather than fact- and evidence-based. North America1000 12:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 01:26, 16 January 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Dellert

Thomas Dellert (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 subject appears to fail

WP:GNG. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
buzz 01:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
buzz 01:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I ran into this user while patrolling recent changes, and I responded to this user's request for assistance. It's what prompted me to look into the article's content, which then led me to assert that notability appears to fail in this case and the article hence should be deleted... not because this user claiming to be the article subject wants it deleted (this would be an invalid reason to consider a deletion - even if this user is confirmed to be the article subject), but because Wikipedia's proper process and guidelines conclude that it should be. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the fact that Wikipedia has articles and article content only about people whom the community finds notable thanks to reliable sources, notwithstanding what any such person himorherself desires. Thank you. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SergeWoodzing - My response above was not meant to imply anything against you or that you didn't know this. :-) I was just stating the above for the record and for this AFD discussion as a whole. My apologies if my response above conveyed this in any fashion. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. My thanks were sincere. I just wanted everyone to know the purported intentions of that user. Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SergeWoodzing - Ahh, I understand now. I'm a little slow right now... coffee is not yet finished brewing... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm also remaining neutral. An editor claiming to be the subject of this article asked on my talk page for help deleting it. (I still don't know why, as I don't think I'd ever interacted with him or even seen the article before.) I don't read Swedish, but using Google translate, that version of the article seems better than the English one. Can anyone evaluate the quality of the Swedish sources? Jonathunder (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There are 3 sources in Swedish now, 2 old ones about the AlexCab show that I have looked at once before for another article, and one recent only about him being his mother's son. All are legitimate & published in well-reputed journals. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SergeWoodzing - Excellent! Thanks for evaluating those sources and for helping to examine this article to determine the right decision that should be made in regards to deletion. I sincerely appreciate it. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:13, 16 January 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Butterfly Garden

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

No indication of notability - an endorsement does not show notability, and nothing from Google searches beyond vendor listings, which makes little sense for a 2008 book. (Also see related AFD for its author, Chip St. Clair, believing that both of these are self-promotional articles). Masem (t) 00:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is pretty promotionally written, enough to where I'd support a speedy deletion as spam. There's just not anything out there that's in-depth about the book. There's the Midwest Book Review review, but that's just a few sentences long and the MBR isn't really the most reliable of sources - even prior to them coming out in 2011 and charging fees, they weren't always the strongest. I haven't fully checked for sourcing for the author for his article, but offhand I wasn't able to find a lot about him either as far as the book goes so I'm going to refrain from suggesting a redirect. Offhand both this and the author's page would need to be pretty much TNT'd to be saved even with reviews. There seems to be a very big COI here as far as the article creations go as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:23, 20 January 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chip St. Clair

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

Appears to be a self-promotional article. No sources given, and searching on Google brings up no sign of any usable RSes to support this BLP. Masem (t) 00:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment I added a source from NBC found here [38]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loved150 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That source seems to be more about his father from the son's perspective, and certainly doesn't provide significant coverage of Chip. -Masem (t) 15:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the concerns I raised at the corresponding BLPN discussion. The page can then be recreated as a redirect to The Butterfly Garden should that article be kept after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Butterfly Garden is closed.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So far all I'm finding are things about his father. It seems like this is his main claim to fame, so offhand if there's enough I'd recommend creating an article about his father, deleting this, and forming a redirect there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wasn't able to find anything that would really show notability for St. Clair or his book. When he is covered, it's predominantly in relation to his father, who is suspected by some to be the Oakland Child Killer. I'd suggest mentioning the father there, but there doesn't seem to be much support out there for this theory like there are for the other suspected killers. I'd also have suggested that the father have an article and St. Clair be briefly covered there, but there really isn't a lot out there for the father either. It's possible that there's coverage that isn't on the Internet, but offhand all I could find were these sources here. This just seems a little too light to really justify an article offhand, at least for a crime related article. In any case, St. Clair's article is so promotional that it honestly could be speedied in my opinion. There's some definite spamivanicruft going on here, enough to where I'd say that it would need to be TNT'd and completely re-written to remove all of it. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For fair disclosure, I've blocked the account that created this page and the one for the book as a spam only account. Their sole purpose seems to be to come to Wikipedia to promote St. Clair. They can be unblockd, but only if they agree not to add material on St. Clair to Wikipedia or (if any of the articles survive or one on the dad is created) edit any pages related to St. Clair. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:48, 20 January 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 Zug#Economy. Unanimous agreement that this shouldn't exist as a stand alone article, but no clear consensus on whether it should be deleted outright, merged, or redirected. Going with redirect as a reasonable middle ground. Two people suggested protecting the title, but I don't see any consensus on that, so I'll skip the protection for now. If that turns out to be an issue, it can always be protected later. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crypto Valley

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

Per the first AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crypto Valley. There's a current proposal to merge this to Zug, but the term is not sufficiently well established. For example, there's also "Crypto Valley of Asia" (also employed by various cryptocurrency publications). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment User:K.e.coffman there's already an open merge discussion underway (with currently one supporter) at Talk:Zug#Economy#Proposed_merge_with_Crypto_Valley . I'm tempted to just merge and be done, but will leave for others to comment now, but this looks like a speedy merge or snow merge (or whatever). Widefox; talk 00:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's a point in merging this to Zug as it would retain a redirect. The term is too obscure, hence this AfD proposal. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A judgement call, but a redirect is surmountable with
WP:RfD, and semi protection available. Seems like a useful alt-title redirect as the term isn't slang and is mentioned in multiple RS. Widefox; talk 03:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Per
WP:CHEAP" Widefox; talk 17:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
("Crypto Valley of Asia" gets 0.012MGhits, so an order of magnitude less than this, which of course is irrelevant here per
WP:OTHERSTUFF. ) Widefox; talk 23:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete or redirect to Zug, it's a local promotional slogan at best - David Gerard (talk) 10:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete rather than redirect. It's an obscure nickname and unlikely search term. Also, deletion would enable the page to be salted, which I recommend to avoid more of these time-wasting discussions in the event of another recreation. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 13:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge I recall one section was dedicated to this on the zug article. As David says, this is really an edge case. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (Strong) term is good enough for two BBC articles, Business Insider and 1/4M Ghits but not good enough for a redirect? Really?! We follow sources not ignore them and assist readers finding content with redirects. This AfD is understandable given the last one (note that one delete !vote Ilyina Olya Yakovna is now a blocked sock which wasn't recognised at the time) and the usual whack a mole of crypto, but trying to force a delete when there's a merge underway and
    WP:POVFORK. Widefox; talk 13:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge to Zug#Economy. Given the non-insignificant coverage in reliable sources about the term and how it's a hub for crypto, the content should be merged into the city page's economy section. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:15, 23 January 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.

I created the page crypto valley. I did so because I was shocked it didn't exist. I can't understand any of the wiki-lingo above, and do not have the time or energy to argue. I just want to say merging crypto-valley with zug has about as much sense and substance as merging silicon valley with whatever is the nearest town, or cryptocurrency with currency, or capitalism with early american history. Crypto valley is not a slang term, there are dozens of cryptocurrencies, including many of the biggest names that have their headquarters there and refer to it, there's an multi-million dollar cooperative organisation that has the word in its title that organises conferences (also using that 'slang' term) that attract thousands of people from around the world. They don't come to learn about or even see Zug. The embracing of crypto-friendly legislation by the VILLAGE of zug has attracted multi-million dollar companies that have bigger budgets than the village. The cultural, political, legal, traditional and economic changes to Zug related to it becoming the centre of crypto valley are so divorced from those found in the article on Zug, only a wikipedia editor who lives exclusively in some wikipedia-rulebook universe with no practical grounding in the real world would support crypto valley existing (or even not existing) as a subheading in Zug. I have no interest in editing Wikipedia if my significant work is deleted by people who have no knowledge or interest in the subject, but who's only claim to fame is that they know the rulebook and the lingo and they spend half their life on wikipedia, feeling like powerful knowledge snobs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniish72 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smuggler (company)

Smuggler (company) (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 directory-like listing for an unremarkable production company. Appears to be part of a walled garden of related articles which also includes:

WP:RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete reads more like a puff promotional piece than anything else.TH1980 (talk) 23:48, 18 January 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 Withdrawn. Article completely rewritten in compliance with policy. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legal syllogism

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

Unsourced

WP:SYN by sock of prolific sockpuppeteer user:Lawmander, whose MO is idiosyncratic writing on the law supported primarily by citations to his own work. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Look at the history of the article. It's personal opinion by an author who puts his personal opinion in every edit he writes, usuall cited to his own writing off-wiki.
WP:TNT. Guy (Help!) 00:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I see no personal opinion in the article and no evidence or example is provided – another
WP:POT. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Maybe you don't. I reviewed the creator's edits. The creator is apparently a graduate of a Polish law school with what appears to be an undergraduate degree but no active affiliations I can trace. He has published a handful of articles, mainly in predatory open access and other dubious journals. He has used at least 30 sockpuppet accounts, and in every case his MO is to insert his
WP:SYN
.
As a term, it exists, usually attributed to MacCormick, but I cannot verify that it is connected in any way to the idiosyncratic presentation here. I can't be confident that anything past the article title is correct, and in the case of the primary author, there is good reason to suppose that it may not be. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oxford University considers it a real thing. [42] Click the Google search [43] for it and you'll find other colleges mentioning it as well. Dream Focus 00:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and if someone rewrites it form sources that would be fine, but this is user:Lawmander and that is a real problem. Guy (Help!) 00:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since when (other than COI/PROMO, which don't apply here) was the editor who started the article a reason to delete? FOARP (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is when the editor's entire history consists of
WP:OR and sockpuppetry, and this article has no sources when the creating editor's own work in crappy journals is removed. There is no reason to beleive a single word of the current content, and there are no reliable independent sources in the article. That means the article violates Wikipedia policy. Feel free to rewrite and add sources if you can find them. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
That's not what
WP:NEXIST says. FOARP (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
It's exactly what it says. Yes, the references don't need to be in the article - though an article with 0 references is highly suspect - but they should exist. If they exist, add them to the article. If they don't, wipe the article.
talk) 11:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Added a few references. If you just click on the Article Search Google Books link, you will find a whole library full of books dealing with this subject. That is at the top of this
WP:AFD nomination, and it is easy to click on. The concept and the article are worth saving. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I clicked on Google scholar link, you will find a whole 'nother library full of articles and books dealing with this subject. That is at the top of this
WP:AFD nomination, and it is easy to click on. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Cosmic Sans: Thanks. Can you also please fix it so it describes the subject not some wibble that a Polish guy dreamed up? Guy (Help!) 00:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk) 15:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for actually addressing the problem. Unfortunately others have fallen for the fallacious view that because the term is important, thus this article should remain, which is
clearly not the case given the serious problems with the creator. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm clearly missing plenty of context because I have no idea why the author of the article is so controversial that it's prompting people to delete the article.
talk) 23:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I am puzzled by the cited fact that "some Polish guy" started this article. Why is that an argument? How is that an argument? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's almost surreal, isn't it?
talk) 18:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Kafkaesque, I think. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
grave-dancing in this nomination. FOARP (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
As to the merits, as a lawyer I would say this is a fundamental concept central to the law, no matter that it is a common law or civil law system. Indeed, this is the way law school Socratic method works, and the way that court systems are supposed to work.
The article can be improved, but that is no reason to delete.
The
ad hominen attack on the article's creator is a fallacious irrelevancy. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
It's not an ad hominem, the guy is a checkuser confirmed sockpuppeteer! Guy (Help!) 15:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disputing your information. Only your reasoning and conclusion. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Your argument about who made the edits has nothing to do with the quality of the article, and its potential sourcing. It is a "
poison the well" argument. If you just click on the Article Search Google Books link, you will find a whole library full of books dealing with this subject. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
So here's the thing. I read some of what sources I can find, and they say this: The legal syllogism is an application of a syllogism (question, minor premise, major premise, conclusion) specifically in law, with the question being the legal issue, the minor premise being the facts, the major premise being the law, and the conclusion being the verdict. Thus: Issue: Is the defendant guilty of theft? Facts: The defendant broke into a house and removed a television set which he then sold. Law: Theft is the taking of property without consent, with the intent to permanently deprive the owner. Holding: The defendant is guilty of theft. The content kind of said something a bit like that but also waffled on about "The facts of the case at hand (also called pending, instant, sub judice, at bar or under argument)" - which is absolutely characteristic of the writing of this sockpuppeteer. He adds his personal idiosyncratic views of related concepts, often in poor English, and always cited to his own writing. This article as I found it did not match the concept as I understand it, and I do not have access to the legal sources necessary to fix that. The article was therefore unfixable by me without engaging in my own original research. It took about four goes of Googling before I even worked out how old the term is. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I meant no disrespect. This is about fixing the problem (the article), not about fixing the blame. I
WP:AGF
.
The original author apparently has some legal training, at least. Thus the legalisms you found, which may (or may not) be good encyclopædic writing. Law schools typically inculcate 'thinking like a lawyer,' which is sometimes an advantage and sometimes not.
As I wrote earlier, if you just click on the Article Search Google Books link, you will find a whole library full of books dealing with this subject. That is at the top of this
WP:AFD
nomination, and it is easy to click on.
It should inform all of us whether this exercise should continue.
Sometimes in Wikipedia we are faced with these Kenny Rogers moments. See The Gambler. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Props to 7&6=thirteen for taking an article with zero sources at AfD open to one that is well sourced. We should stop discussing the articles origins because it no longer matters, it is irrelevant, the article has been totally refactored and the underlying concern raised by Guy is addressed. -- GreenC 15:26, 20 January 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_January_16&oldid=1142614171"