Wikipedia : Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 19

Delete this would need good sourcing to keep.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As article stands, it just doesn't seem to pass
WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a 25-year-old joke with no source other than the magazine it was published in.
π, ν) 00:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, doesn't meet
(talk) 13:27, 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. Consensus is that the article is promotional and the subject is non-notable. Just Chilling (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plant Lipids

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

Beyond the fact that this article appears to have been created by the company itself, and the fact that it is completely unsourced, my

WP:NCORP guidelines. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 21:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 21:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 21:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 21:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Delete Possibly by G11. Seems a straightforward advertisement DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see any
Talk2Me|Contribs) 17:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH. Speedy deleiton per A7 or G11 would have been fine. It really shoudn't have taken two years and three deletion nominations for something like this. Deli nk (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as non-notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:10, 26 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) 00:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Grandayy

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

Possible

WP:SPIP at the local source Lovin Malta and only passing mentions in few other sources. wumbolo ^^^ 20:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Delete. I find examples of local sources praising their local boy, as well as press releases and trivial mentions. Fails to pass any
WP:NCREATIVE criteria as far as I can tell. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Passes
WP:BASIC per these references: 1 2 3 4. Lovin Malta's articles all appear to have been labelled as Press Releases on Google but this appears to be a mistake, anyway the coverage in other Maltese media easily meets the criteria for notability. FOARP (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 21:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 21:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 21:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Maltese media reports are "national" not "local" (which is why the distinction between the two that some people like to draw is baloney). Anyway, there is no requirement for non-"local" coverage in

Keep Hi, I'm Grandayy, I was contacted about this article by an editor but was not involved in its writing, though I can help add more information if necessary. I see that it has been nominated for deletion. I'm new here so I don't know the exact rules and terminology, but what I can do is mention and link some more articles or events that I think are notable, apart from the ones already mentioned. I would love if the article is not deleted but obviously I'm biased, so I'll leave it up to more experienced editors to take the decision. Not sure which of the following facts can be considered notable or not but here's what I can think of:
We The Unicorns, a YouTube news website, had done an interview with me. 1

YouTube network Fine Bros Entertainment made a REACT video dedicated to me and my work. 2

I worked on PewDiePie's "YouTube Rewind 2018 but it's actually good" video, the most liked non-music video in the history of YouTube. 3 This has been the subject of several news articles that also mention me. 4 5

I am also mentioned on mainstream website articles about the time I publicized the banning of VoiceoverPete from the Fiverr website. 6 7 8

I have the most subscribed to YouTube channel, the most followed Instagram page, and the most followed Twitter page in all of Malta. And I am the most famous Maltese person according to the Famous Birthdays website. 9

There are several articles written about me on some of the biggest Maltese news websites, as previously mentioned and linked above. Grande1899 (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the We The Unicorns interview is that it contains only two sentences which weren't written by you. That's not enough to pass
GNG, the guideline for notability, which requires significant third-party coverage. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - this fails
WP:GNG by quite a way. Social media sites and local reports are insufficient to establish notability. The comments above look like self promotion. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:BASIC. Moreover a number of newspaper articles have been cited above. FOARP (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Just want to add a few other Maltese articles not already mentioned that may be relevant. 1 2 3 Also I want to confirm that no article posted in this page was self-promotion or paid promotion. All were written by independent authors and I was always reached out by them. Anyway I'll obviously leave it up to whoever is responsible to take the decision regarding deletion, but I wanted to add my arguments to the discussion. Thanks! Grande1899 (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above and improve - It passes
talk) 18:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Delete. The sources invoked offer little in support of notability,
reliable source but the articles cited (here and here) are about a Fiverr actor with the subject mentioned in passing, exactly the case of this piece on Gizmodo as well. The truly significant citations appear to be this piece on Times of Malta and this one in The Malta Independent, a fact that does not help the case of keeping this. -The Gnome (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Delete Regardless of who wrote this, this is a promotional article (

Keep 2 million subscribers should pass the
WP:Basic notability guideline. Openlydialectic (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:CREATIVE

for the following reasons.

None of the listed resources is a reliable source. A search for Lovin Malta shows that this magazine has just recently been started, so would not yet have had time to establish reliability. What's left is Twitter, Youtube, a Google search, and SCAN, which is the official newspaper of Lancaster University, written by students, not RS.

The sources added above by Grandayy are all non reliable sources.

Of the sourcess cited above (but not added to the article) the Times Malta and Independent are possible sources, but are basically interviews. The two Malta Today only mention Grandayy.

Since Grandayy's claim to fame seems to be that he has over 1,000,000 subscribers on Youtube (now 1,900,000), the question is, has he made a significant contribution to the "event" (Youtube). While he has the most subscribers of a Maltese Youtuber, the metric here is how he rates against other Youtube video personalities. According to
WP:1E. Aurornisxui (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - Just because a piece contains quotations from an interview does not make it "substantially an interview" in the sense that it is a primary source - the only part that is a primary source are the parts quoted from him. The Times of Malta piece contains a substantial amount of material that is not quoted from Grandayy, the same is true of the Malta Independent piece. Notably both continue for several paragraphs before first introducing what Grandayy said to them. The Malta Today piece also dedicates several paragraphs to Grandayy. This is all

WP:SIGCOV as it "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" - specifically it tells you who Grandayy is, how old he is, what his profession is, when he began making Youtube videos, what genre they belong to (comedy), how many followers he has, how many times his videos have been watched etc. PS - regarding Lovin Malta, I see they were set up in April 2016, so they have already been in existence roughly three years - clearly long enough to establish notability. FOARP (talk) 13:25, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany Yeiser

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

This is advertising for her book, her personal appearances, and her foundation. The entire biographical section about her own experiences with schizophrenia is unencyclopedic . And there is no third party RS. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 23:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 23:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 23:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 23:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 23:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Delete As Nom states, this is a musician who struggles against a serious illness and wrote a 2016 autobiography that got a very minor amount of attention: an interview in her college alumni mag, an interview in local media, an interview in the industry mag Pillpack (promotes prescription medications to consumers - aka: advertising,) and an interview on Mental Health Radio Netowrk. Also, she published an essay about herself in [[Schizophrenia Bulletin. This does not add up to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as not reaching notability. --Lockley (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for notability, or lack thereof. --
(talk) 13:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. Fails notability. Alex-h (talk) 18:20, 24 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) 21:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lafiosa Enterprise

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

There's no indication that this label is notable. A single possibly-reliable source (ie not Reverbnation, Spotify or iTunes) mentions it, and that only in passing. Google News found one additional source that only is yet another passing mention and that rather clearly indicates that while the founder might have high hopes for the label, it's not there yet. Huon (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:NCORP - I can't find any in-depth, independent, reliable sources. Jmertel23 (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Deleteو Article does not have reliable sources Alex-h (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. GPL93 (talk) 15:55, 25 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. Randykitty (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

District of Columbia (until 1871)

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

The subject article wholly duplicates existing material in the History of Washington, D.C., Washington, D.C. and District of Columbia retrocession, adding nothing of substance or detail. The City of Washington and Port of Georgetown were separately incorporated entities within the District of Columbia until 1871, when they were absorbed into the District. The subject article, entitled "District of Columbia (until 1871)”, is intended to cover the purportedly distinct history of the District during the pre-1871 period. But the story of today’s Washington, D.C. – as set forth in existing articles – necessarily and already comprehends the complete history of the District of Columbia, from its conception and founding in the 1780s and 1790s to the present day.

To the extent that the de jure unification of the “City of Washington” and the “District of Columbia” in 1871 was a watershed event or had other practical significance, or may have resulted in important material being omitted from existing articles, Talk page discussion has been unproductive in teasing any of that out; and in the end no meaningful reason has been provided why a separate article devoted solely to the District, qua District, prior to 1871 is warranted. I am proposing “Delete”, but “Redirect” or “Merge” may also be appropriate if discussion here identifies unique or heretofore un-covered issues that can be accommodated in existing articles. JohnInDC (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should have an article on the District of Columbia. This seems so obvious to me, as I said before, I don’t understand the opposition. Here are things about the District of Columbia that exist right now:

The District of Columbia government has a web page: http://dc.gov. The city of Washington government does not have any page, that I can find.
Federal courts are “for the District of Columbia”: https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/
Dictrict of Columbia Public Library: https://www.dclibrary.org
According to the federal government, the unit is District of Columbia: https://www.usa.gov/state-government/district-of-columbia. The mayor of Washington DC is the Governor of the District of Columbia.
The District, not Washington, has a Department of Motor Vehicles: https://dmv.dc.gov
The District of Columbia runs the school system, according to its web page. There are no city of Washington schools, to my knowledge: https://dmv.dc.gov
The law enforcement agency is the “Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia”. (
District of Columbia Police
).
The local courts are District of Columbia courts, not Washington courts: https://www.dccourts.gov
There is a University of the District of Columbia: https://www.udc.edu/about/campus-map/. There is no university of Washington the city.
The laws are in the District of Columbia Code: http://dccode.elaws.us
District of Columbia is mentioned in the Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution, which creates electors (as in Electoral College) for the District of Columbia, not the city of Washington.

To say that the District of Columbia does not need a page, that a forward to the Washington, D.C., page is sufficient, seems to me really off base. deisenbe (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All those items are described at Government of the District of Columbia, and in more condensed fashion at Washington,_D.C.#Government_and_politics and throughout. The former includes outbound wikilinks to more than a score of articles on specific DC Government agencies, including the libraries, schools, courts, mayor's office, police, corrections, and parks. JohnInDC (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has it never occurred to you that the solution to duplication in, say, the History of Washington, D.C., is to take material _out_ of the Washington article? And how can you have an article on the Government of the District of Columbia, without an article on the District? deisenbe (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no.

District of Columbia redirects to Washington, D.C. and not vice-versa.) It wouldn't make much sense to take material out of the articles that are, in fact, about the District of Columbia in order to put them into some other article about the District of Columbia. JohnInDC (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Delete - per nomination. - BilCat (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No content worth keeping not already at History of Washington, D.C.. Holy shit, "The capitol of the U.S. in Virginia? The New England states would have none of that." is embarrassing. Reywas92^Talk 22:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wasting my time, and yours I suppose, but I stand on WP should have an article on the District of Columbia. The original district, as in
Boundary Markers of the Original District of Columbia. It sticks out like a sore thumb that there isn't one. Articles on Washington D.C. are not a replacement. Until 1871 Washington was not the COMMONNAME. My point is not that the information isn't there, it's that it's in the wrong place, not correctly organized. Like saying there's no need for an article on Manhattan, because it can be dealt with under New York City. But I'm dropping the matter. And I'm not embarrassed. deisenbe (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I understand the point made by trying to split the articles, but there's only ever been one District of Columbia - it's not as if there was a new entity which was created upon the municipal merger in 1871. The only thing which changed was the COMMONNAME. It would be a good point to split a history article if that were necessary but that doesn't seem to be the case. SportingFlyer talk 21:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a valid distinction between "Washington" and "District of Columbia", as well as the formerly independent "Georgetown" for that matter. It's clear from the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 article that the city(s) and the district were politically merged at that time. So any distinction is purely a historical matter. But I take User:Deisenbe's point that a separate article covering the history of DC up to 1871 would be a good thing, if only to clarify these very issues about the proper name and political organization of the District prior to consolidation. Yes, Deisenbe created the article and wrote all of it, which he or she might have disclosed here in this discussion. Yes, the article needs some work. But structurally, I think he or she is correct. --Lockley (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just found and put in a neat animated map showing the evolution of the District of Columbia. deisenbe (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NB this map is already featured at District of Columbia retrocession. JohnInDC (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As noted above, there is an abundance of well-developed articles already in the encyclopedia about the District of Columbia, as well as about the important formative and transformative events in its history. The
City of Washington redirects to Washington, D.C.. Which isn't, in fact, the "City of Washington". There is no separate article for that entity, which - for 70 years, had its own history, and, no longer exists today. I haven't looked in all the possible places for material that bears on that entity (there may be some) but whatever may be already here pales in comparison to what is already present on the District of Columbia, and, to the extent that the information is scattered here and there, it may be profitably pulled into a single article, and expanded. If something is missing here, it's material on the City of Washington, not the District. Making yet another article about the District is fixing the wrong problem. JohnInDC (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

JohnInDC, I agree with you that there's plenty of articles around this topic. I can't agree that they amount to good coverage in separate places. For instance the History of Washington, D.C. is never exactly clear (that I see) about the distinction between the federal district and the federal city, or their relative sizes. Many times it seems to treat those two entities as interchangeable names. Another example, the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, has only a sidelong reference to the city boss Alexander Robey Shepherd, who dreamed it up and pushed it through, and nothing to say about why consolidation was a hot issue to begin with. To me these are additional reasons why the historical entity District of Columbia (1801-1871) deserves its own article. --Lockley (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That requires clarification in the existing District of Columbia articles, not creation of a new one which virtually by definition cannot be anything but a redundant subset of the existing ones. Washington, D.C. is, legally and literally, the "District of Columbia". And it's the "original" District, established in 1801 (as shrunken in 1846), not some newly-minted 1871 entity. The history of "Washington, DC" is the history of the "District of Columbia" all the way from 1801 through to the present day. The article, History of Washington, D.C. is detailed and comprehensive. If it is vague around the edges, then we need to tighten it up. We do not need yet another article, about an arbitrary period in the history of the District. Indeed what would we add to that new article that we 1) don't already have and 2) can't easily incorporate into what we've got? Now - by contrast, there is "City of Washington", which was formed in 1802, and abolished in 1871, and which was within, but separate from, the District of Columbia; yet there is (so far as I know) no separate article about that erstwhile entity. If there is more to be said about these entities during their period of separate incorporation (a point on which I'm not yet persuaded), I can't for the life of me see why we'd create a seventh or ninth article about the District, and let the City continue to languish as an afterthought. JohnInDC (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, the article is now expanded and copyedited since its listing here on Jan 4, which I hope has addressed some of the concerns expressed above. --Lockley (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Lockley did a very good job of cleaning up the article, particularly in copyediting and imparting the proper tone. The essential concerns remain, however. The article is redundant, with its substance entirely and more thoroughly covered by existing articles; and its purpose as a standalone article is as inarticulable as it was before. JohnInDC (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, JohnInDC, but with respect, there's a bit more to it than that. Interested editors are invited to see for themselves. --Lockley (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per
WP:GEOLAND (which I cannot believe has not been invoked yet). This is a confirmed name for a former inhabited polity (i.e., the District of Columbia as it was before 1871). FOARP (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
- Uhhhh because we're not talking about notability here? The District of Columbia has always been the District of Columbia – it's the City of Washington that changed from being downtown only to being a merged entity with District of Columbia, and the History of Washington, District of Columbia, naturally includes the history of the coterminous District of Columbia. This is just redundant. Reywas92^Talk 21:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The District of Columbia not a "former inhabited polity". It is a current inhabited polity. The "former" was the City of Washington, which passed from formal existence in 1871 and - almost inexplicably - has no article anywhere in the encyclopedia. I think it'd be great if someone wrote that one. JohnInDC (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are lots of historical issues worth considering and covering here. Especially since Alexandria, Virginia was for a time part of this entity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course such historical issues are worth considering, but this does not explain why these issues need to be duplicated in a separate article. Alexandria is certainly not left out of History of Washington, D.C.! Reywas92^Talk 21:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is additional relevant discussion at Talk:District of Columbia (until 1871). deisenbe (talk) 23:07, 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) 20:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

There is a redirect for
District of Columbia that sends everyone to Washington, D.C. As I see things, it should go. deisenbe (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Summary This disussion has died down. I'm going to try to move things along by putting down what seems to have emerged from it. This is not any one person's position.

According to the discussions here and on the talk page, we need:

A new article on the District.
A new article on History of the District.
A new article on the city of Washington, until 1871.
Move material from the existing Washington, DC and History of Washington DC articles into these.

Once this is done,

Deletion of the District --> Washington DC redirect.
Deletion of the History of the District --> History of Washington DC redirect.
Deletion of the present article on District until 1871.

Comments? deisenbe (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well this is certainly a strange AfD. Normally AfD discussions come down to a rough yes or no question, does this article belong in wikipedia?. The central question here is more like do the names and contents of a bunch of District of Columbia & Washington DC articles accurately reflect their co-mingled histories, and what about this one, relative to all of those?, which is a more time-consuming judgment about the structure and contents of maybe a dozen articles. It's a homework assignment... no wonder the discussion has died down. In my opinion deisenbe's suggestions about re-structuring this set of articles makes good sense, because it clearly differentiates between the "District of Columbia" and "Washington", and provides a basis for systematically untangling those separate entities, which was the whole point. --Lockley (talk) 01:07, 25 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) 21:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right to Succeed

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

Seven years after the first AfD closed as no consensus, there is still no sign of this being a notable organisation. The sources are one press release and one interview, plus three YouTube videos with celebrities endorsing the organisation, so none of it secondary. A search for sources did not yield anything that was independent - in fact, there were very few search hits that were about this organisation at all. There is an organisation by the same name in the UK, and the phrase is used in a variety of contexts unrelated to this organisation.

WP:NONPROFIT. bonadea contributions talk 19:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 19:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 19:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Delete. If all you can come up with is an advocacy publication, a group of entrepreneurs, and three YouTube videos, your topic isn't notable. Come back later when it gets major awards that are covered in secondary sources, like books and academic journals. Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, absolute lack of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per above. It's sad that this can't fit any CSD criterion.∯WBG^converse 05:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. The referencing is insufficient to prove notability....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Inadequately sourced, and no improvement after the last AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 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 Keep (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Southport Visiter

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

Non-notable article. No significant coverage of the paper itself shown in the listed sources; its journalists got articles when they retire but notability is not inherited. Amisom (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: long-established local newspaper with unusual title, cited in several Wikipedia articles which would be the poorer without the ability to click through to this article to verify the credentials (and spelling) of this newspaper. PamD 19:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of that suggests that it's notable. Being long-established doesn't mean it passes the
WP:GNG. Having an unusual name doesn't mean it passes GNG. And we cite sources all the time that don't have clickable links, and that's fine, because our criteria is the GNG not 'I think this would look prettier with a blue link'. Amisom (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 19:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 19:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 19:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 19:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Keep: Clearly meets
WP:GNG. Article also has plenty of refs to support notability. MarnetteD|Talk 19:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Which of those refs comprises 'significant coverage"? Amisom (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long-established local newspaper. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSOOLD? Amisom (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:SNOW KEEP sourced article on local newspaper. It is extremely functional and user friendly to provide basic inforamtion on news media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:ITSUSEFUL? Amisom (talk) 09:10, 24 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) 21:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Catnip Times

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

Fails

WP:WEB. Compare to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Purrington Post. jps (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Delete not seeing a lot of notability.Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing more than local sources or sources that amount to namedropping only, so I'm not seeing anything that gets close to notability for a magazine.
talk) 21:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as lacks coverage in reliable sources.
Talk: Contribs) 23:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per there simply not being enough reliable coverage. 31.54.34.61 (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are 17 hits in Google news with 3 of them about the Catnip Times. It is a news source for cat lovers which are many. Karl Twist (talk) 08:11, 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Solidus Bond

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected

csp

|username}}.

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

Non-notable financial instrument. Sources used in entry are primary, SPS and/or foreign language reprints of PR. Pegnawl (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not a synonym for popularity among millennials. Seems Pegnawl wants a blockchain financial product to be as "notable" as the latest iphone...The Solidus Bond is unique, first of its kind, patented and vetted by third party sources who have qualifications in the subject matter. Article sources are not "primary" even if primary sources are used that reproduce non-primary source material. The Chinese dont translate American PR releases and translations cant be done by machine. The assertion that these are "foreign language reprints" is fake news. Solidus Bond is cited in academic papers. Pegnawl nominated Solidus Bond for deletion literally 18 hours (!) after I made the improvements he asked for 3 months ago... There seems to be an agenda at work here. Had I not made the improvements yesterday, he would not have nominated the article for deletion today. Something is not right about the deletion process here. I have also recently seen advertisements for people to get paid to vote for deletion of articles. ..this process is corrupt and something needs to change. Interfacts (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC) — Interfacts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I have terminated this user's editing privileges under
WP:GS/Crypto. MER-C 20:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Objections are not policy-based - David Gerard (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable as per its subject matter. Finance and debt are not popular topics and it is not fair to demand news the same level of news coverage one would expect of more mundane topics. And silencing the author is really quit unfair. Please reconsider your actions.Keerti.kasat (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC) — Keerti.kasat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Objections are not only not policy-based, they try to beg a special exemption from policy - David Gerard (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and should probably have been a G11. I just went through checking all the sources. Almost everything is a press release reprint or churnalism, a primary source, an irrelevant citation that doesn't even mention the article topic, or a cite that literally doesn't back the claims made. This is straight-up crypto spam - David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note, this job offer on Upwork hiring users to participate in this AfD. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Access is restricted to Upwork users only." Could you please c'n'p the text here? - David Gerard (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Helpers - posted 15 hours ago : We need people with wikipedia accounts to help our current edits. We do not need you to create a new wikipedia article. We need support for our edits and votes to keep. We can also support your edits and articles. We need a team of wikipedians to support each other.

The post doesn't mention the name of the article but there is some other evidence that confirms it was for this AfD. @David Gerard: Please check your inbox. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 11:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is promotional, and is in blatant breach of
WP:NPOV by presenting cryptocurrency-based instruments (in general, and this one specifically) as unambiguously good. They are absolutely not and are horribly risky, as the massive collapse in cryptocurrencies over the past 12 months or so attests. And, as David Gerard says above, the sources are problematic and are not acceptable for demonstrating notability. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete David Gerard and Boing! said Zebedee have analyzed this article correctly. The topic is not notable and the article was written for promotional reasons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Balkywrest (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
π, ν) 02:43, 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 redirect to

Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Alt.usage.english

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

Time to revisit. The first AfD closed as "keep" because, it was argued, there were significant hits in Google Scholar, News, etc. If you tease them out, it's less than one might hope for. This Chronicle blog reproduces a list from the newsgroup. This dissertation apparently uses the archive, given the one hit in the bibliography, and in earlier work the then-student seems to have cited it. There's a few mentions in other articles, but I see no significant discussion. The article itself is problematic: it relies exclusively on primary sources (and is obviously written by an insider), which it uses also to namedrop a bunch of notable linguists. I see nothing that makes it notable per GNG. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 16:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

talk) 16:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

Comment Drmies is right on sourcing, but I'm not convinced that deletion is the only option. Is there a possible redirect target? The cultural history of
π, ν) 00:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Redirect to Kirshenbaum. I found a few plausible sources for that usage^[1]^[2]^[3] Another possible redirect would be alt.* hierarchy, but Kirshenbaum seems like a better target. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Making it Happen". Google Books. Retrieved 19 January 2019.
^ "Communicating Effectively". Google Books. Retrieved 19 January 2019.
^ "Letters to the Sports Editor". nytimes.com. 28 June 2014. Retrieved 19 January 2019. Kir

.

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~~No consensus. I sincerely hope that the promises of working to improve this rather disastrous article will be kept... Randykitty (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Girls' Frontline

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

This is a

WP:SPS (blogs and the like). Sandstein 22:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Keep There are sources out there, a search with "少女前線" brings up many sources but they're all in Japanese or Chinese. --Mr. Mario (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I don't dispute that the article is in need of work, I would disagree that it's run of the mill. Just because it's a gacha game doesn't make it run of the mill by default, and it's one of the most successful gacha games in terms of worldwide proliferation and popularity. I would be willing to put work into this article if the primary issue is its dubious current state of quality. Lucas "nicatronTg" Nicodemus (talk) 19:09, 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 as per

WP:SNOW. Schwede 66 17:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Fred le Roux

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

~~no sources~~ my bad, there is source but it isn't significant. For those who want to keep per

WP:NCRIC that needs an update. ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Keep this is somewhat
WP:NCRIC and 2 further references added. Spike 'em (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@Spike 'em: my use of "update" was unfortunate. I suggested to update the guidelines (as in WP:NCRIC), not the article. ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I've said over and over on WT:CRIC, if it's CRIN which is the problem - and this is what is being suggested here - suggest a way to fix CRIN based on brightline criteria. This has not been done despite half a dozen requests to do so. Bobo . 17:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject played in a Test match for South Africa and easily meets
WP:NCRIC. Not being updated/having enough sources is not a valid reason to delete an article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments as per the two participants, I am convinced that this can be kept per NCRIC. However, I will be starting to change NCRIC in the WikiProject. ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A single user cannot unilaterally alter a guideline. This happens through weeks, months of interactive discussion - if at all. And please, if you wish to suggest an alteration to CRIN, do so with absolute values, not with flimsy "yeah but, no but" language. "A few" is weaselly and cannot be conformed to. Bobo . 18:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Test cricketer for South Africa and verifiably and reliably meets
WP:NCRIC -- Ham105 (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 19:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 19:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 19:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Strong keep clearly the meets the criteria as set out in
POINTY. The nominator has provided no clear reason for deletion. The article has also been expanded and now has five references. If the nominator wishes to change the long established notatbily criteria for cricketers this is not the way to go about it. – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Ianblair23 can you guys stop attacking me? Focus on the discussion please. I am trying to what's right, not proving my point. ImmortalWizard(chat) 01:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - surprisingly, IW, this specific conversation is much less about you than you want to believe. The article has now been expanded and referenced appropriately - you just now know that nominating something to AfD is not the way to go about it. My point about the alteration of CRIN criteria goes deeper than simply this one conversation. But this is neither the time or place to be mentioning that. Bobo . 06:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep once a BEFORE check is done. I'd also be amazed if additional sources, possibly in Afrikaans, didn't exist in South Africa newspapers of the time but have no way of checking them. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why even waste time sending this to AfD - the man was a Test cricketer, playing at the highest level of cricket. The only reason I can think is to make a point. Perhaps try and expand article instead of verging on disruption. StickyWicket (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Test cricketer. Poor nomination. Johnlp (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on the nom's comment above, I think this can be withdrawn/speedy keep. I've dropped a note on an univolved admin's talkpage for further input. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:21, 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 no consensus. A possible merge (and the appropriate target for such) can be discussed on the talk page. Randykitty (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Air Route Traffic Control Center

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

Similar to

WP:RS

. The article is 100% sourced to internal FAA documents, ZHU's own web site, and airnav, which is just an automated compendium of directory-style information gleaned from FAA documents.

My own searching failed to find anything better. Low point for air traffic control looked at first like it might be a reasonable source, but it's written by two ZHU union reps, so hardly independent. The rest of what I found is all

WP:PRIMARY. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a List of air route traffic control centers. There is a whole category of Category:Air traffic control centers, but I do not see any of them being notable on their own. There is a lack of substantive RSs about these to call for individual articles, but I could certainly see a list of them covering the major features. Otherwise delete, it's just a list of airports in a certain region. Reywas92^Talk 21:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a

List of Area Control Centers, but that's not a very useful list; most of the links just go to articles about the cities the ARTCC's are named after. There's also Area control center, which is currently a poorly-sourced article, but that's clearly a notable topic and should be improved and better sourced. I'm not sure what would be gained by listing every ARTCC there, however. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

P.S. Note it would be perfectly fine for each separate airport article to mention and link to its corresponding area control center. Rather than repeating general info about each area control center (like the fact that "Houston Center is the 9th busiest ARTCC in the United States") in all of the separate 25 or so airport articles, it is best to have a short article about the control center.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is best I think. Alternatively, it could be merged to
List of Area Control Centers, i.e. some info from the Houston article could be used to develop its brief entry in the world-wide list-article. Also the world-wide list article should probably be moved to a more descriptive name such as List of air route traffic control centers as suggested above, and it obviously should be developed to cover the centers rather than merely link to city names, but that is not for AFD. However, I think it is okay for the Houston article to include the list of airports it serves, and that is too much to merge into the world-wide list-article, so "Keep" is best I think. It is okay for editors to split out the content from the world-wide list, and the content is sourced. I agree it is not a very exciting article though. --Doncram (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

P.P.S. Or think about it this way: It would be fine to create a 25 or so item category

wp:CLNT it would be fine to have a corresponding list article List of airports served by the Houston Air Route Traffic Control Center. But we don't need to have a separate list-article, it can/should be a section in the Houston Air Route Traffic Control Center. --Doncram (talk) 01:25, 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rahab Ministries Thailand

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

Non-notable organisation. The vast majority of the sources are non-RS linked to the organisation or trivial mention (e.g. directory listings), and the one reliable source (The Star article) is not about them. I hadn't realised until I saw the notification, but this is one of Neelix's spree of non-notable organisations about saving women from sex work - must have been missed when a bunch were deleted when he got banned. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 01:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 01:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 01:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 01:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Delete. I'm only finding passing mentions or non-independent sources, even if I split out the country name separately. Softlavender (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are these two [1][2] organizations related? I can find coverage in independent sources for simple "Rahab Ministries" such as [3][4][5] It is unclear if "Rahab Ministries Thailand" or "Rahab Ministries" should be the article title. We would need to revamp the article and move the page to "Rahab Ministries" or just
WP:TNT. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
- No, unrelated. Two different founders; no interconnection. "Rahab Ministries" even has a different rationale for the name: an acronym, RAHAB, Inc.: "Reaching Above Hopelessness and Brokenness" [6]. The Thailand organization was founded in 1988; "RAHAB, Inc." was founded in 2002. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is Neelix-spam. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 09:18, 24 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. Obviously, this close does not preclude a possible meger/redirect after appropriate discussion on the talk page. Randykitty (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PCVC Speech Dataset

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

Non-notable dataset. The article is based entirely on the author's own publication and lacks any other independent expert sources that cover this specific dataset in sufficient detail (refs #3-5 are not about PCVC). A search for other secondary expert sources revealed no coverage at all. GermanJoe (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 18:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

As anyone can see on Google scholar, Researchgate, Arxiv, and other scientific sources, This dataset is a notable dataset and accepted as an standard in one conference and one ISI journal. Also the dataset is downloadable for free to see weather it is fake or not. thank you.
WP:TP). GermanJoe (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Google Scholar is a web search engine and source index, it doesn't convey any kind of "notability" - please see
WP:GNG for Wikipedia's definition of the term as project-internal criterion. Neither do Arxiv and Researchgate, who simply host submitted content. The conference paper has been presented just in 2018, and there is zero evidence that other academics and expert publications have reviewed and discussed this dataset, let alone accepted is "as a standard". The mentioned journal simply republishes submitted conference papers and similar primary content (as noted on their description at [7]). Please provide independent secondary publications from other academics or experts, who discuss this dataset in some detail - not only your own initial publication. A last point: I never claimed that the dataset was "fake". It is not a notable encyclopedic topic, but that does not imply any judgement about its quality (a lot of non-notable publications are perfectly valid and accurate). GermanJoe (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
In any conference and such a journal with 1.1 impact factor, also in arxiv there is a judgment process which indicates weather a publication and a dataset is notable or not. this dataset is a new dataset so it needs an opportunity to be in Wikipedia for getting more citations. If this article will be removed from Wikipedia it would be less opportunity to the research society to use this unique dataset. Also the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PCVC Speech Dataset that was in Wikipedia for more than 9 months was nominated to be deleted that makes me wonder how it could be possible that such an article after 9 months of existence in Wikipedia nominated for deleting. Both of datasets just by one person (GermanJoe).Sabemalek (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments like this dataset is a new dataset so it needs an opportunity to be in Wikipedia for getting more citations show a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose. This kind of
promotional showcasing to raise the topic's citation count is prohibited on Wikipedia. GermanJoe (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
If a dataset has no Wikipedia page it would be very difficult for research community to find and refer to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabemalek (talk • contribs) 16:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see a good keep argument here. I smell
WP:AFC by Legacypac. Unless we hear for them, I would assume that advocates keep. If there is no further input I would suggest closing as no consensus for now. ~Kvng (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Partial merge to
List of datasets for machine learning research. No point entirely eliminating mention of the dataset, as quite good work has gone into explaining it, with pretty good phrasing at that. That said, references are lacking, and a standalone topic seems hard to defend at this point. 31.54.34.61 (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or merge. I must have accepted it based on the extensive refs and well written article. It does not seem promotional to me. Not an area I'm an expert in though. Legacypac (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The AfC-reviewed version had exactly 1 somewhat suitable reference, and that's a conference paper by the article author. Out of the other 4 references, 1 was a trivial Github listing, and 3 are publications that have no direct relevance for the article topic (#3-#5), but are used for synthesis. The number of independent experts discussing this topic aside from the original author is exactly zero. The article clearly fails the sourcing requirements of
  WP:GNG. GermanJoe (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment (as nominator) - of course uninvolved editors could merge a brief mention into the main list, even if notability isn't sufficient for a stand-alone article. Or the author could post a suggestion for such a mention on the list's talkpage
WP:SELFCITE). GermanJoe (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge as per
(talk) 13:38, 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Bernhardt

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

Only source is IMDB, which is not reliable. The article fails

WP:NACTOR. » Shadowowl | talk 12:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Keep I am not sure if the nominator has done
WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable for the screenplays. I don't think was ever notable as an actor, but the writer of scripts for multiple notable films can be reasonably presumed to be notable . DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as a screenwriter and a few of his acting roles were notable too (General Hospital and Hellraiser III for example). Here's an newspaper article about him during his GH stint. 1. He also won Best Actor in a Feature and Best Screenplay for the movie Shiner at the 2017
GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 22:08, 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. Randykitty (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matt & Meshel

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

Insignificant radio show Billycleaner (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom and not enough reliable sources. ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:00, 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.

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Radio Progreso & ERIC-SJ

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

Both organisations fail

WP:GNG, largely based on unsuitable, related sources The Banner talk 11:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

The frantic efforts of the author to add every blurb remotely related to the subject is turning the article into spam The Banner talk 20:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable organization. The sources are reliable and about all that one can expect in the second poorest country in Latin America.Jzsj (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We need to relate our principles to the context. Honduras hasnt a wide variety of sources and our coverage is poor. Rathfelder (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Six of the sources are the own website of the radio station and at least one is a Jesuit-related source (the Jesuits run this organisation) The Banner talk 13:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Check all the sources. And a couple I just added are clearly independent. Jzsj (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed, what you added about the murdered journalist and a party are indeed irrelevant. The Banner talk 14:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources in the article as it stands now demonstrate that it does pass GNG (in particular, these two and this one). But beyond that, I think
WP:NEXIST applies here, as Rathfelder alluded to above: Eric/Radio Progreso plays an important role in Honduran civil society and has been around for decades; just because we can't find a lot of sources online right now doesn't mean it's not notable. For example, I don't know exactly how to fit this into the article, but here's a story the AP ran back in 2013 about a national survey Eric conducted. -- irn (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 02:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 02:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Keep as there is likelihood of offline sources given the claims of significance, it is referred to in reliable sources which is also indicative of offline coverage in a very poor country with lesser Internet coverage which has caused systemic bias Atlantic306 (talk) 15:31, 26 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. Randykitty (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Native Scientist

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

Nonprofit organization lacking notability. There are several references on the page but they are all either primary, non-independent, or only have passing mentions of the organization. Fails

WP:NORG. Citrivescence (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are these many references not independent? Rathfelder (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder: A quick glance at the reference list shows that numbers 6-15 are all non-independent in that they are either produced by the organization itself or organizations that have partnerships with Native Scientist, e.g. this piece by King's College London describing an event held on their campus. Can you look at the reference list and point to two specific references that have significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources? Citrivescence (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think Kings College is sufficiently well established that if it publishes stuff about it, even if held on its campus, that counts as independent. The fact that there is a relationship with a whole load of other substantial organisations does not compromise their independent status. Rathfelder (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:IS. If you can find two independent sources that fulfill the other notability criteria, please share them. Citrivescence (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as it has significant substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources such as here which is not affiliated, and another example is this one which also is not affiliated, so the subject deserves to have an article in the encyclopedia, and concerns over advertising tone can be addressed with editing for neutrality, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic". I'm quite sure these universities have no vested interest in this topic. Rathfelder (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

I am the author of the page considered for deletion. I understand the concerns raised about its notability, given the apparent lack of independent sources. I use "apparent" because it remains unclear to me what independent sources really are, as it seems that people commenting above are not in agreement. If I understand correctly, pieces of news in general media on a specific organisation would count as independent sources for notability. There are several of these sources for Native Scientist in the Portuguese media, for example, and I can provide them if you think that would be suitable. I haven't done so before (in the page) because English-speaking readers would not necessarily understand the content of the sources. I still believe that Native Scientist would deserve an entry in the English wikipedia for several reasons: (1) this project was born in England, (2) the operating language of this organisation is English, (3) many of its activities take place across the UK, (4) this organization has a scientific purpose and the scientific community uses English as their communication language.Rafaelgalupa (talk) 00:17, 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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edmonton & Area Land Trust

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

WP:PUFFERY

, including the paragraph on the "Emerald Award" they won in 2013. I would've cleaned up the article to remove puffery, keep mainly secondary sources, and remove external links (including the PDF link in the middle of the article), but this would see most of the article content removed as it is. Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 02:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 04:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 04:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 04:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

of this article. I appreciate your assistance in helping us comply with Wikipedia's rules and regulations. Please let me know if you have additional recommendations - I would like to keep this page but make alterations as needed.

Support to Keep this article

I have removed many of the links to the Edmonton and Area Land Trust webpage plus some wording that I thought could be viewed as

WP:NOTABILITY

I am the Stewardship Coordinator for the Edmonton and Area Land Trust.

Mjacklinealt (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Changes to Edmonton and Area Land Trust Article

I have suggested a number of edits to streamline the Edmonton and Area Land Trust page, and suggested the addition of references to support the information written and the

WP:NOTABILITY

of the page itself.

These changes introduce more secondary sources supporting the information in this article, support the notability of this article, ensures that the article contains subjective material only, and ensures that information written is unique and not copied from another website.

I am the Stewardship Coordinator for the Edmonton and Area Land Trust so I did not make these edits directly. I hope the changes meet Wikipedia’s guidelines. I am open to further suggestions.

Mjacklinealt (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The changes that have been requested are to add references to the Edmonton Journal which would not be considered an impartial source in this respect. What is needed for the article are references to sources which are not connected in any way whatsoever to the subject of the article. Without these sources, the article's POV cannot be stated as being neutral. Unfortunately, seeing the COI editor state that their changes "introduce more secondary sources supporting the information in this article, support the notability of this article, ensures that the article contains subjective material only" seems to suggest that this editor does not fully grasp

WP:N. Spintendo 22:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Comment

Good Afternoon,

Thank you for taking the time to help me improve this article.

With the previous suggested edits I have been trying to address the issues highlighted at the top of the page – that the article relies too much on primary sources and that the subject appears to not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines.

I reread the general notability guidelines WP:NOTABILITY as well as a number of associated pages to ensure I have a good grasp of this concept. I believe this page meets notability guidelines because of significant, non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources such as the webpages of the Edmonton Nature Club (ENC) - http://edmontonnatureclub.org/endowment-for-land-conservation-and-stewardship.html and the City of Edmonton - https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/environmental_stewardship/edmonton-area-land-trust.aspx. I realize these are primary sources and may not be considered fully independent in that they are involved in founding EALT, but they are entirely separately governed and made their webpages without influence from the Edmonton and Area Land Trust (EALT). The ENC has an elected board of directors who decide what they do, and the City of Edmonton webpage about EALT would have been created by staff and directed by elected officials. Are these unacceptable because they have any connection at all with EALT?

Whether those sources are acceptable or not, I have also looked through the suggested searches and found several sources of information that meet the most or all of the requirements of secondary, independent, verifiable sources. Would these be acceptable to support information in the article? I would format them properly and suggest them as an edit.

This report by Canada West Foundation has no link to EALT, and is a secondary, independent source with in-depth coverage of EALT. http://cwf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/CWF_BrightSpots_Report_SEP2012.pdf
This news article from Science for Students has no link to EALT, and is a secondary and independent source. https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/bee-hotels-are-open-business
This peer reviewed Journal Article published in Human Ecology has no link to EALT, and is a secondary, independent source with in-depth coverage of EALT. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10745-013-9621-9#citeas

Could you recommend what you think should be improved about this article at this time? I appreciate you taking the time to read through this and help me improve this article. I would welcome further recommendations to prevent this page from being deleted.

I am the Stewardship Coordinator for the Edmonton and Area Land Trust. Mjacklinealt (talk) 21:04, 25 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. Randykitty (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dotman

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

Not convinced that subject of this article meets

WP:TOOSOON (based on the 2017 references), am not convinced there is anything different in his career between 2017 and January 2019. HandsomeBoy (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 19:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 19:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Keep - he seems to receive lots of coverage in Nigerian press. [8] Tamsier (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails
WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of the subject doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. Contrary to what Tamsier said, the subject has not received lots of coverage. A Google search only shows the promotional links for the songs he has released or been featured on. The only convincing source I could find is this. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:00, 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

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Drunk and Hot Girls

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

Does not meet

original research, particularly in regards to the YOLO claim. Already explained at length within Graduation album article. Much on the background info is dedicated to a different topic, backed by OR. Ascribe4 (talk) 07:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Comment This already had an AfD a couple months ago and the result was no consensus. Trillfendi (talk) 07:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 07:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Weak keep. Most of the citations are passing mentions, but 1, 2, 3 and 4 single out the song - admittedly within list-type music journalism articles - for its dreadfulness. Perhaps more notorious than notable, but IMO it just scrapes through
WP:NSONG. Narky Blert (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect I’m going to say the same thing I said last time: the only “notability” of this song as that some regard it as one of Kanye West’s worst songs. That is just not notability; it’s only a matter of opinion. Maybe if Rolling Stone or Billboard called it that, it’d be a different story but it doesn’t even meet NSONG because it never charted (nor was it a single!). People just like to nitpick out of boredom. Redirect this thing to Good Article Graduation (album) and get it over with. Trillfendi (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect painlessly to Graduation (album) per Trillfendi. --Lockley (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per my comment on the previous AfD. Aoba47 (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - This whole article reads like WP:CRUFT so not seeing anything worthy of being merged.—N Ø 21:27, 25 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 YNW Melly. Randykitty (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed Personalities

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

Does not meet

WP:Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Ascribe4 (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Delete Being as it just came out less than, what, 24 hours ago? this is an unmitigated
WP:TOOSOON. Who knows whether this song will flop or succeed. Trillfendi (talk) 06:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 07:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Redirect to
WP:NSONG. I believe it should be redirected to YNW Melly's Wikipedia page because the edit history should be preserved since if it manages to chart then combining the position(s) with the information already on the page would meet the criteria. --Kyle Peake (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Worth noting that I created this article. This song will surely chart and the music video, also notable, is trending at #3 on YouTube at the moment. The argument that it came out less than 24 hours ago is also weak, it would mean putting up 7 Rings for contention too. Delay the deletion for at least a week and we'll see where the song is on the Billboard 100. Nice4What (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ascribe4 (talk

Could argue that the music video's trends are what make the song already notable. Nice4What (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need I remind you it hasn’t even been 48 hours....

Who the heck knows how a music video will affect it yet. It’s too soon to even have chart data.Trillfendi (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Redirect My crystal ball says this will likely chart, but if it doesn't, it should stay a redirect unless there's another case for notability (simply "trending" doesn't count). Џ 01:49, 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 merge to Nottingham College. Randykitty (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Central College Nottingham

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

This entry should either by deleted or redirected to Nottingham College. The organisation itself no longer exists and this page is essentially duplicate information. Jamesmacwhite (talk) 10:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion for

Central College Nottingham Jamesmacwhite (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

Merge: As described, this college has merged to become Nottingham College. Shouldn't be hard, the Nottingham College article already contains most (all?) of the information from here. Then redirect as attempted already. The alternative, rewriting this article from a historical perspective is undesirable since it lacks notability as a no-longer-existing institution and because frankly it is a bit of a mess right now. Lithopsian (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: It makes sense to merge/redirect and simply blank the existing content on this entry. This is case with the
New College Nottingham article, and there's no reason to be any different. All the heritage college entries i.e. South Nottingham College, Castle College Nottingham, New College Nottingham all redirect. This one should as well. There are references (albeit small) to the former college names on the Nottingham College entry, which should be fine at this point. Jamesmacwhite (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge for the reasons given by users Lithopsian and Jamesmacwhite above. Ntmamgtw (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Note: This nomination was not transcluded for discussion and was missing the AfD Template. I have corrected both, please use the time of this comment as the listing time when closing. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 04:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 04:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Keep. Page appears to be in line with WP:SCHOOL Mgbo120 (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 06:16, 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. Sandstein 09:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Westerfeld

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

Seven-year-old declined PROD. Still fails

WP:BEFORE reveals he's a guy with a job, that's it. "Coverage" is mere mentions or worse (book acknowledgement?). UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOT. A really paranoid android (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 06:13, 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 keep. Michig (talk) 09:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Bone

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

Appears to be notable for a single event only, namely being the subject of a single song. See

WP:SINGLEEVENT

.
(Note that receiving an MBE is not notable. See here and here.) I guess some of the information in the article could be merged into Disco 2000 (song). Chrisahn (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 05:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 05:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 05:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 05:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Selective merge into
Common People (song)#Inspiration (but shorter). Qwfp (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Being notable for being the subject of a top-ten song is hardly a reason for deletion. The subject is also a Member of the Order of the British Empire, for something unrelated to the song. The first discussion cited by the nominator confirms that such honours "do, of course, contribute to notability"; while the second says of an MBE "Of course having one may contribute to notability: notability is a spectrum, not either/or". The article has citations from multiple, reliable sources, about both of these aspects of the subject's life and achievements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the selected quotes give a slightly misleading impression of their author's intent. Here's the complete quote from this discussion about the question 'Is an MBE recipient notable?': "No, the MBE (or OBE) does not confer inherent notability. Consensus is, however, that the CBE (and above) does. Any honours do, of course, contribute to notability." And here are two quotes from this discussion about the question 'Does an MBE confer notability?'. Quote 1: "No, absolutely not. According to the UK Government, there are over 100,000 living members of the order today." Quote 2: "That's too many for every MBE recipient to merit an article purely because of having one. (Of course having one may contribute to notability: notability is a spectrum, not either/or.)" -- Chrisahn (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You prove my point; since nobody is claiming that Bone is notable "purely because of having" an MBE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think we agree that an MBE may contribute to notability. My point was that the selected quotes gave a slightly misleading impression. Thus the complete quotes. -- Chrisahn (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for her contribution to the development of mental health provision in the UK. In my travels I see many male health professionals with articles on wikipedia, establishing for me that notable healthcare contributions and careers are considered notable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tagishsimon: Could you give a few examples, i.e. links to articles? It would probably be helpful if we could compare their contributions and careers. Thanks! -- Chrisahn (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not comparative but a spectrum. Subject is notable for her "pioneering work in mental health" including Brainbox per the adequate sources for WP notability.Littleolive oil (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Littleolive oil: Does 'The Brainbox' still exist? The website http://www.thebrainbox.org.uk is currently offline. -- Chrisahn (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep combination of pioneering work in healthcare AND relation to an iconic song, keep her as a person please. If facts were merged to the song and to health care, - where would a redirect go. We have room for her, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some more details why I don't think Bone passes
WP:N
, I think a single article is not significant (even if there are several slightly different copies of it).

About Bone's achievements: The article mentions 'The Brainbox' and 'Step2'. I looked for more information about these projects. 'The Brainbox' seems to be a small company offering a single product. It's unclear if it still exists. Its website http://www.thebrainbox.org.uk is currently offline. The Internet Archive last indexed it in November 2018: [19]. 'Step2' appears to be a local and rather specialized service. Its homepage says: "Step2 is an Early Intervention Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service for children and young people in Hertfordshire aged 0-19." The notability of 'The Brainbox' and 'Step2' appears to be rather low.

On a more personal note, I'd like to add that I don't want to hurt or offend anyone by nominating the article for deletion. I don't doubt Deborah Bone was a nice person. I just don't think she passes the criteria of

WP:N

.

As the nominator, I can't add a

wp:!vote here, but I'd like to add that I would be in favor of a Merge / Redirect to Disco 2000 (song), as Qwfp said above, as opposed a simple Delete. -- Chrisahn (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

@

talk) 20:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

@

Bakazaka: Thanks a lot! I changed my !vote to a comment. -- Chrisahn (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Keep with a side-order of
fish sauce. How does anyone with an MBE warrant a CSD A7? (And if your response to that is "An MBE doesn't mean notable" then you do not understand CSD A7). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I read several pages about CSD before I suggested the speedy deletion, and I didn't find anything supporting the assumption that an MBE gives someone "
WP:REPEAT: "Avoid repeating statements previously made in AfD discussions." Enjoy your fish sauce! -- Chrisahn (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep Detailed obituaries in the BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, Indy, NME and elsewhere and so she easily passes
WP:BASIC. No-one, not even the nominator, thinks this should be deleted and so we shouldn't be having this discussion. Andrew D. (talk) 23:58, 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. Sandstein 09:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution (term)

AfDs for this article:

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

Quite a straightforward

WP:DICDEF, with no content beyond what you might expect in an inadequate dictionary's entry for the term. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. More than a dictdef, touches on varieties and subtleties. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Redirect seems better. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

- In much the same way a dictionary would. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely, 100% clearly a dicdef. I have no idea what article Xxanthippe is reading, because it's not this one. GliderMaven (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's pretty much an exemplary dictionary definition. The intended job of this page, minus a bit of verbiage, is being done by Evolution (disambiguation). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has been weakening
Democrat In Name Only. I am not a fan of this trend. However, if reliable sources could be provided for such notability, a case could be made for keeping this article. As it stands, I would either Delete or do away with WP:DICDEF and admit definitions in Wikipedia. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Pretty straightforward example of DICDEF. Wikipedia is not a DIC. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete
WP:DICDEF Any non biological meaning of evolution is already covered in the field of study for example Chemical Evolution, Economic Evolution Aurornisxui (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect a DICDEF that does nothing that can't be done on
π, ν) 00:30, 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. Sandstein 09:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Idrees Ul Haq

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

Promotional piece. Claim to notability is a bunch of non-notable awards; most of the references are either broken, mention the subject in passing, or were written by the subject. Prod was previously disputed by article creator

WP:SPA with obvious ties to the subject. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 05:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Speedy delete per A7. Also Social Royal Voluntary Environmental Service. I strongly suspect the article is an autobiography. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with speedy delete - it's an obvious promotional article that doesn't meet notability.
Ravensfire (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep None of the sources I have reviewed (as exhibited below) are either broken or written by the subject. They discuss the subject mostly significantly and not in passing. These are English sources; there may be many more local language Urdu and Kashmiri sources available.[20][21][22][23][24][25] Lourdes 07:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo article with weak sourcing. The sources listed above by lourdes, are either
WP:ROUTINE news article about the unsubstantiated claims of discovery from the subject. --DBig Xrayᗙ 07:21, 26 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. Lourdes 06:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Deutschmann

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

Mayor of a German municipality with the population of less than 3,000 people. Doesn't pass the notability criteria for politicians (

WP:NPOL). German Wikipedia usually has articles on mayors of important towns (like district seats) or cities. In this case however, even German Wikipedia doesn't have a corresponding article. Darwinek (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Delete the fact that an article on a place with less than (yess less than ) 3,000 people has existed for over 13 years is another black mark against Wikipedia. We need a better process to monitor article creation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 00:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 00:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply