Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 January	29 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Terbolizard

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

This page is about me and it presents a very incomplete and arguably slanderous representation of my life. It has been edited down to only reflect one thing I did over ten years ago and all of the other media attention I have received has somehow been removed or ignored.

I would like to argue my legal 'right to forget' case in this instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terbo Ted (talk • contribs) 23:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Completed steps 2 and 3--Auric talk 11:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]

The "legal 'right to be forgotten' argument is not going to get far in this discussion, because there is not such recognized right under US law (it's basically a Europe thing), and that's the law that Wikipedia operates under. Generally "the article is no good" doesn't get an article deleted in the Article For Deletion process; as long as there's ay material in the article worth saving, it is generally saved. What gets articles deleted is generally establishing that the topic is not worthy of having an article. Here are our guidelines on what makes us consider a person sufficiently notable for an article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't looked at sources or anything yet, but
WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE may be relevant. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment A google-news search gives me 3 hits for "Terbolizard", that doesn't argue for
WP:NOTABLE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per cites currently in article and lack of coverage, fails
WP:NPOLITICIAN. If the acting or writing career [1][2] takes off we can always recreate. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I appreciate everyone reminding me that I referred to a European law, I was quite aware of that context and jurisdiction already. I am not in any way inferring that legal action against Wikipedia is pending. Indeed, I've sold furniture to wikipedia for their SF headquarters, they are a client. I bring up the right to forget concept because the sentiments of that certainly apply here. I have done so many things in my life that have had mainstream press coverage over the decades, perhaps the least interesting of which is that I finished in sixth place out of six candidates in an election primary over ten years ago. That someone deleted all of my other accomplishments from my page is fine, but please, delete the entire page if one life event over ten years ago is the only matter worth preserving. It's a pretty useless bit of internet but still manages to cause me personal problems with my daughter and others. It is not in any way a genuine representation of who I am. This article sucks, has multiple errors and generates almost no traffic. Honestly, I'm a loser, you can look at the previously deleted press coverage to find that is indeed true. Is that a good enough standard for deletion? Thank you for your kind consideration. And honestly, if I'm asking for a page about me to be deleted, snarky technical comments back are kind of rude and insulting, I hope you can understand this perspective with some degree of human compassion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terbo Ted (talk • contribs) 07:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC) copied over from AFD Talk page for visibility by Nat Gertler (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete - For those looking for the earlier version with more coverage that the poster refers to, it would appear to be this one, which was cleaned out for largely being an attack page with inappropriate sources (Amazon and eBay listings, other Wikipedia pages.) Looking through earlier revisions, I cannot find a time where there were substantial other sources that would indicate notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually found a

WP:DAILYMAIL article about a "Terbo Ted", but that's not useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per
WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Bishonen | talk 19:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC).[reply
]

Delete without prejudice to the subject's acting or writing careers, which, as noted, may be more significant; but in the meantime there is not sufficient coverage for current notability standards, and there is also
WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. MPS1992 (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete due to insufficient coverage to meet notability standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 00:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to close this as delete because
WP:SNOW I'm ok with that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Terbo Ted (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC) !!!<---- this is Theodore Terbolizard speaking:[reply]

ok. while I have been a longtime wikipedia user/lurker I have never found it necessary to start an account to edit until it seemed to be the only way to recommend deleting this incredibly useless page about me I would like removed.

so far, I've been sort of miffed by how sententious all of you seem to be as a lot. simple user feedback. always lecturing me, whether it's on tildes- hey I didn't edit my comments- others did-!!! or lecturing me about law and so on. chill out people.

what's also really lame is that at one point my public page here on wikipedia was a fairly accurate representation of me as a person... the whole 'known for wide ranging failures' motif which was here at one point was exactly correct. that the community here thought that was some sort of attack page seems noble on a surface glance, but in honesty, with this page being about me, I can tell you, whomever pruned this page back to only the politics, which has been a hugely small part of my life, really irked me. There were lots of things referenced that i had done that were real. Somehow it seems sources like NPR, The San Francisco Chronicle, VICE Magazine and the Daily Mail don't count by your scorecard. I've learned a lot from this brief behind the curtain encounter and it's that I don't like wikipedia anymore.

Can't wait until my page is removed.

I really should go find some ascii art of tildes but I can't be bothered.

>>>----> end of THEODORE TERBOLIZARD RANTING <-----<<< Terbo Ted (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC) four tildes and some more tildes 00:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terbo Ted, I mainly voted delete because I sympathized with your situation. Are you trying to change my mind with your sneers? I havent "lectured" you AFAIK, and I don't see anybody else above doing it either. Bishonen | talk 00:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I think the fellow is entirely within his rights to denounce Wikipedia as being garbage. Everyone else has already done so, and most of them were right. I've never thus far met anyone whose name could easily be misheard -- and misread! -- as "Turbo Lizard", so I think he has the advantage of all of us there. MPS1992 (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an unelected candidate for public office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Bishonen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JACKonWIKIS (talk • contribs) 18:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Myth (streamer)

)

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

Fails

WP:GNG. There are not anywhere near enough published details to write a proper bio, as the article currently clearly shows. It reads like a press release. John from Idegon (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at the previous AFD, while sources were identified, those didn't get comment. One was a Forbes contributor source which is not an RS. The ESPN of "Streamers to watch" has a whole single paragraph about Myth - not significant coverage by any mentions, and being name-dropped in a Polygon article is not sufficient. Popularity on Twitch is not a measurement of notability. --Masem (t) 15:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--no serious coverage. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article seems promotional with no real third-party coverage. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator.

(non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Alberto Borghetti

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

Fails

WP:NPROF notability. "Guglielmo Marconi" in his professor title is the name attached to the Department, not a named chair. While he does appear to have published many papers and I am admittedly not an expert so cannot judge their impact on the field, the complete lack of additional sources (both in English and Italian) referencing that research as well as the fact that there is no corresponding Italian article for this Italian professor supports lack of notability. Sktai391 (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 01:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 01:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 01:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep While this is obviously a stub created from the IEEE list that year, the fact remains that becoming a Fellow of the IEEE is the actual example cited in the notability guideline for meeting
talk) 01:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Along with the obvious pass of
WP:PROF#C3, I think his Google Scholar profile shows enough citations to his work for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdrawn by nominator Missed IEEE because it was spelled out in the article. My mistake. It was helpful to have the proper citation, thank you. I've replaced the broken one. Would be great if someone with better understanding of the field could add a few lines highlighting significant contributions since there's very little out there other than academic papers. That would also provide an opportunity to better link and integrate the article. Sktai391 (talk) 10:44, 29 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trek Stemp

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

fails

WP:NBASE Joeykai (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 01:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 01:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 01:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 01:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Never advanced past Rookie-league level in the minors. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 09:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails
WP:NBASEBALL and not finding significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fails
WP:NBASEBALL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, trivial, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Professionally he doesn't appear to have played at a level higher than Rookie league. Being second team Pac-12 is not enough to meet any notability criteria and doesn't appear to have the coverage needed to meet
WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boss 'N' Hug Connection

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

Article is a mess, but even if it were cleaned up it would still fail

WP:ENT Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 21:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 21:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. There could be an argument that if they were to win the upcoming
The Four Horsewomen would be much more notable before any article on just these two. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply
WP:TOOSOON.LM2000 (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete too soon per others. STATic message me! 20:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Clearly erroneous nomination. postdlf (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zahoor

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

No coverage cited and lack of reliable sources Shringhringshring (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 01:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy Keep under
talk) 01:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep -- Paleorthid (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep -- Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, nominator has removed afd notice from the page. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:19, 30 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 Incarceration of women. Selective merge; see the discussion for guidance on what material should be merged. After the merge, redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional rights of pregnant inmates

)

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

WP:NOTESSAY, and it seems that a majority of the aforementioned article was created using original research. OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete and Merge information into an essay. Bkissin (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge as above, but the first portion only, given the other ~75% doesn't read like a wikipedia article should do (and yes, reads like an essay/academic report). There may be future scope for a proper article here, though the title doesn't make reference to the content being USA-specific. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above, should be part of other article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rights of pregnant prisoners is definitely, definitely a distinct topic. The article style could use some work (eg. shorter summaries of Nelson and Boswell, removing "only" for POV) but this is keepable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptocurrency Historical Prices

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

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

Fails
USD going back in time. Cubbie15fan (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong delete per
WP:RAWDATA and completely unsourced. Ajf773 (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.
Talk: Contribs) 15:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Ajf773. Something along those lines may be appropriate for a comparison article, but not like it is at the moment, and not under that name. ^{[Username Needed]} 15:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NOT/INDISCRIMINATE. I don't see anything to merge, but do want to point out that our most similar article is Cryptocurrency bubble, which is currently basically a collection of poorly connected statements and could use attention if someone is interested in writing about this subject. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Beyond the V issues, this is
WP:RAWDATA - historical asset prices are perhaps something for wikidata or wikisource - not for Wikipedia. Icewhiz (talk) 11:00, 30 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
2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis#Social media. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Guaido challenge

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

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

This is a hashtag claiming to be a "viral internet challenge" for a current geopolitical event. It is a
π, ν) 21:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

No opinion from the creator, but some history. The article was tagged (not by Power~enwiki) literally minutes after the first edit,[4] so I haven't put the work I would usually exert into developing the article to an acceptable standard. I will put this one down to the "why experienced editors lose motivation to participate" department, and let the community decide what to do with this kerfuffle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis#Social media My thought is that this is a facet of a larger crisis, and should probably be added to the existing article about the Venezuela crisis. Bkissin (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to
2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis#Social media per Bkissin's rationale. Essentially a part of the larger crisis. Maybe deserves its own section but not a full article. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 05:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge/remove per discussions at
talk) 15:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Reminder of
WP:OSE cop-out, but the #BringBackOurGirls campaign redirects to the Chibok schoolgirls kidnapping, as the campaign was not seen as independent from the situation at hand. Bkissin (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Ten years from now, it will show up in resiliency studies about how a traumatized population used humor to deal with anxiety and extreme uncertainty. But I really don't care if Wikipedia misses that boat or not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge per HapHaxion and Bkissin. Too much risk of a POV content fork in fraught political conflicts to maintain. Simonm223 (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss World 2008. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mari Vasileiou

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

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

The article has one source, which is the website of the competition which Vasileious won. Winning a competition is not a default source of notability, we need to see at a minimum that winning that competition leads to some level of 3rd party coverage, of which there is none at all for this win. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Miss World 2008 per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:16, 31 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Collins McSparran

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

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

Doesn't appear to meet
WP:NPOL GPL93 (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - while it's a historical example, the individual does not appear to meet
WP:NPOL. No stand out redirect target. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Mounting an unsuccessful primary challenge is not a notability claim that passes
WP:NPOL, but this isn't doing a good job of demonstrating that he's notable for other reasons. Serving as a trustee of the state university and being appointed to the State Council of Education might be stronger notability claims if they were referenced significantly better than this, but one obituary in his local newspaper and one short namecheck of his existence in a journal article about an event he happened to be involved in is not enough sourcing to get him over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 29 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. Fenix down (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ignasi Vilarrasa

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

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

Fails
WP:GNG. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - fails
WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 09:43, 29 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. Fenix down (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kike Saverio

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

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

Fails
WP:GNG. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:26, 29 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. Per
WP:PAG based arguments clearly favor deletion. Most of the Keep arguments seem to either ignore or misunderstand our notability guidelines. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

La Gloria (shoe retailer)

La Gloria (shoe retailer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails
WP:NCORP. Could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. CNMall41 (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article from El Nuevo Día is significant coverage, and El Nuevo Día,a leading newspaper in Puerto Rico, is a reliable source. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One source does not meet
WP:CORPDEPTH. If that were the case, any company would pretty much qualify for its own Wikipedia page.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep, a legendary company in Puerto Rico. dilo aqui!
) 04:48, 15 January, 2019 (UTC)
Why "strong" based on a single source pointed out above? "Legendary" is not part of the criteria for
WP:CORPDEPTH?--CNMall41 (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Despite no web coverage, the article passes
WP:CORPDEPTH. Sheldybett (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

"Despite no web coverage, the article passes
WP:CORPDEPTH." Did I read that correctly? That is exactly why it would NOT pass CORPDEPTH.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Dratify Guess, the page requires more work to look encyclopedic Mgbo120 (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep because they have stores in 37 of the 78 municipalities of P.R. http://www.lagloriapr.net/lagloria/Tiendas.html --
talk) 13:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Can you show me the
WP:NCORP guideline that talks about companies being notable based on the number of stores they have? --CNMall41 (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
This source, a Puerto Rican newspaper discusses the significance of these stores in Puerto Rico. [http://www.adendi.com/archivo.asp?num=204189&year=1995&month=8&keyword= --
talk) 01:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

A document by the Federal Communications Commissions calls it "one of the principal shoe stores in Caguas, Puerto Rico" here, on page 387: [1]

References

^ United States. Federal Communications Commission (1951). Federal Communications Commission Reports. V. 1-45, 1934/35-1962/64; 2d Ser., V. 1- July 17/Dec. 27, 1965-. Federal Communications Commission.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As 3 of the Keep votes have not been justified in anything close to suitable policy
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
Wikipedia:Reliable Sources for what sources can be used. My apologies if you already know this. Aurornisxui (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete Article does not meet
WP:CORPDEPTH
for the following reasons:

Of the sources listed, only the El Nueva Dia is RS. The first is an ad for the shoe store at a mall published by the owning company of the mall. The second is a directory listing with address, phone, etc. While there is the founding date of the company, this does not meet
WP:CORPDEPTH
. The third is another ad. The fourth is a webpage from La Gloria's competitors and the site is under construction. The fifth is the El Nueva Dia article.

I went searching for more information. I tried Newspapers.com to see if Florida papers might have something. No results. I searched for Puerto Rican newspapers and found this listing. I tried several papers, especially those that deal with business, but no results there either. I did a search for "La Gloria zapateria" and "La Gloria calzado" and "Tiendas La Gloria", no results. Aurornisxui (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep here is another resource:
talk) 02:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

A professor at the Business School of the University of Mayaguez in Puerto Rico wrote a book Negocios que han hecho historia en Puerto Rico about businesses of Puerto Rico, in which she features La Gloria. She stated she had to write the book so that universities of Puerto Rico could use business case studies of Puerto Rican, in their curriculum. She noted that up to that point that case studies used in business schools across the island were of American businesses, in books written in English.
talk) 02:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

References

ISBN 978-1-62309-919-0
.

^ United States. Federal Communications Commission (1951). Federal Communications Commission Reports. V. 1-45, 1934/35-1962/64; 2d Ser., V. 1- July 17/Dec. 27, 1965-. Federal Communications Commission.

^ Vélez Candelario, Azyadeth (September 11, 2009). "Noticias y Eventos". UPRM (in Spanish). Retrieved 22 January 2019.

Comment

I've tried 2 different computers, but all I can see of the FCC report is, as you said, it is "one of the principal shoe stores in Caguas, Puerto Rico". However, the article on the report is about the manager of La Gloria and not about the company itself. This still fails
WP:ORGCRIT
see the section Primary criteria. Like the NYT example, the FCC report is reliable, independent, and secondary, but the coverage about the store La Gloria is not significant.

The second source you cite merely mentions La Gloria, as well as 9 other retailers. The section is about commercial transformation, how older and newer buildings will make up the new commercial areas on Puerto Rico. It uses La Gloria merely as an example of the kind of store that will be in this new commercial area. For significant, independent, reliable, and secondary sources, you will need to find more articles like El Nueva Dia that talk in depth about La Gloria.

Lastly, the book you mention still does not talk about the store La Gloria. it mentions the modern slogan of the store and that the vice president of the company spoke about how important the book was. The companies profiled in the book, according to the article you cited, are E. Franco and Company, El Meson Sandwiches, Compofresco Processing as well as Ricomini and Vasallo, plus two international companies. Again, sources must have significant coverage -- meaning in depth coverage about the company La Gloria, and not just be mentions of it to qualify.Aurornisxui (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"It is the quality of the content that governs." and it looks like the article in El Nuevo Día is a good quality article on the shoe store.--
talk) 15:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
It is, but you need more than one quality source to be notable. Aurornisxui (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading
talk) 04:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:ORGCRIT "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." (my bold, italics on this part). Also, significant on Wikipedia does not equal lots and lots. Aurornisxui (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Clearly, many of the Keep !voters are not familiar with the guidelines on notability of companies and other organizations in
HighKing⁺⁺ 19:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete (unless someone has a good redirect target), per @Aurornisxui:'s good analysis of the present sources. My own sweep didn't turn up anything else helpful to discussion. I don't believe the one source is so stupendous as to warrant running off one source, nor is there a particularly good argument for IAR, here. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails
Jovanmilic97 should be thanked for relisting this discussion this is a clear delete)--DBig Xrayᗙ 05:35, 30 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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Stoken

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

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

A financier and author. He has written 7 books on finance but none of them has many reviews on Amazon. Google News and Google itself don't return much that could be used to satisfy WP:V. Tagged for notability since 2010. There are two refs in the article the first of which points to a book store - where his books are listed as out of print. Szzuk (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reviews on Amazon are not considered WP:Reliable sources, as far as I am aware. For someone whose first books were published from the late 1970s to early 1990s, I would not necessarily expect to find much on Google either. There are reviews and coverage of him (starting from 1966, 12 years before his first book was published) in digitised newspapers on Newspapers.com. I will try to add some. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have started adding some reviews and coverage of his work and writings. It should be sufficient already to show that he meets
WP:AUTHOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete It appears that the article is referencing some local awards. No source is written about him as the subject. Fails
WP:WAWARD) 15:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Reply I will remove the mention of the "award" (actually I can't - it's the name of the article). For
WP:AUTHOR does not require coverage of the author as subject. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

~~delete~~ Most of the references are based on his 1978 book predicting a depression was coming and everyone should sell their stocks. Extreme market views always generate a lot of press at the time but
WP:NOTNEWS. The S&P 500 was at about 96 then and is now at 2664 so it wasn't a very accurate forecast. Not seeing the coverage to convince me the GNG is met.Sandals1 (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment 3 of the 10 reviews/articles are about his 1978 book - that is not "most". How is the accuracy of his forecasts relevant to his notability? One of the articles about his work actually says that his analysis wasn't accurate - the point is that other people wrote about him and his work. The first article, from 1966, is 26 paras long. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my original vote. Not convinced either way. Think I'm biased against those seeking to cause panic for their own notoriety.Sandals1 (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC) Looks like a duck to me[reply]
That is generous of you! I have to admit that I looked into him in the first place because I'm biased against AfD nominations that don't look past Google (or Amazon!!!) for subjects which predate the digital era. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, meets
WP:NAUTHOR, books have received multiple reviews, in addition to those added to article by RebeccaGreen there are also (oh no! trade reviews, but available online yaaay!:)); for The Great Game of Politics, Publishers Weekly - "Serious students of the American presidency will find Stoken's thinking a bit simplistic as well as present-minded. .. But less-schooled readers may find some help in thinking about the approaching 2004 election.", Kirkus Reviews - "Amateurish exercise in political history, turning on half-correct assumptions and half-formed arguments. .. There’s nothing much new here, and nothing much worth remembering; readers would do better to consult the far more powerful work of Kevin Phillips and David Hackett Fisher, argued with a welcome dearth of exclamation marks. A PowerPoint presentation to Rotarians, maybe. A book, no." (ouch!!), Booklist - "There is nothing earthshaking here as Stoken lays out an analytical framework to track this ebb and flow back to George Washington's administration. .. Interesting and timely writing, especially for those who like their theories neatly packaged.", and Library Journal - " Unfortunately, the author's simplistic characterization of the ideologies of America's two main parties lacks objectivity, his interpretation of history is problematic, and his analyses of presidential politics seriously flawed." (reviews here), and the journal Long Range Planning reviews Strategic Investment Timing. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete
WP:NAUTHOR only looks to number of reviews after it's established by sources that the body of work is significant or well known ("In addition"), but nothing cited establishes that. In fact, what's been quoted establishes the opposite, his body of work is neither significant, nor well known. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

titles held by multiple libraries, some only a few but, for example, Cycles around 300, so is significant/well known. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Double-Tongued Dictionary

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Double-Tongued Dictionary

Articles for deletion/Double-Tongued Dictionary (2nd nomination)

Double-Tongued Dictionary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability. Dream Focus 10:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to
WP:BOOKCRIT requires. Cnilep (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I couldn't make a clearcut determination as to reliability of Search Engine Journal source - it's an equivalent to an industry journal, but has a reasonable set-up. There's a few paragraphs on DTD. As to whether it aids the sourcing dispute, I'm unsure, so I've remained neutral. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:50, 28 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles A. Pascal Jr.

Charles A. Pascal Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Possible
WP:GNG. GPL93 (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is so advertorial that it could legitimately be felt to breach
G11. That aside for now, NPOL isn't satisfied and coverage as a lawyer doesn't appear to be sufficient to demonstrate notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Leechburg is not remotely large enough to extend a presumption of notability on its mayors just because they exist, but the article is referenced nowhere near well enough to get him over
advertorialism going on here, because this features one of the biggest disconnects between the length of the article and the scantiness of its sourcing that I've seen in quite some time. Bearcat (talk) 03:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Anspach

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

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

Mayor of a small Pennsylvania city. When searching his name there doesn't appear to be enough sustained or significant coverage for to pass
WP:NPOL GPL93 (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mayors of small cities are not default notable, and coverage does not otherwise show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing to make him clearly more notable than other small-town mayors, thus fails
WP:NPOL. No sufficient source coverage for his corporate position. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete
WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Nothing here represents an automatic free pass over
WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 29 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. It's snowing.
(non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 18:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Ashlee Marie Preston

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

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

verifiably, as no reference cited here supports it at all) the first transgender woman to do either of those things, being named as an influential person in webmedia listicles, giving a TEDx talk -- are not instant notability freebies that would guarantee her an article just because she exists, but the article isn't properly sourced for the purposes of establishing that she would pass GNG for any of it. Apart from one magazine article about her declaring her unsuccessful candidacy, the only other references here are one of the listicles (which is not substantive, and is being cited only to support its own existence as a listicle rather than to support any content about Ashlee Marie Preston), and a primary source video of the TEDx talk itself. So the only source here that gets her off the starting blocks is the Ebony article, but that's not enough substantive coverage to get her to the finish line all by itself: there's not nearly enough quality referencing here to get her over the GNG bar, but none of this is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have enough quality referencing to get over the GNG bar. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a non-notable editor. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @
talk) 15:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh - Teen Vogue, Ebony (again), Daily Beast, Yahoo, Queerty, HuffPo, LAT, NBC. Why does it look so much like an editor with 100k contributions over 15 years forgot to do a google search? GMG ^talk 11:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is a close paraphrase of [5] and as such a copyvio see [6]. Probably should be a speedy candidate for that alone. W C M_email 12:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In case that wasn't already evident. I've also expended the article three-fold to include 15 citations, and that's without ref bombing, which could easily be done to prove a POINT, since most of the information is duplicated in multiple references. There are also additional references not used in the article being used for quotes on the corresponding Wikiquote page. GMG ^talk 18:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could argue either for keeping or deleting this article. On one hand, there's enough about a failed candidacy that would disqualify a lot of the sources from GNG, and other sources identified above aren't necessarily WP:SIGCOV, and there's also a possible copyvio. On the other, there's quite a bit there that's non-political that dovetails with the political. I lean delete in these sorts of situations, but am fine either way. SportingFlyer T·C 20:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RS GMG has shown and the many more that come up in a cursory google news search. Rab V (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since this woman has made history, article is well sourced as well and also per WP:HEY and WP:GNG. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per sources listed. /Julle (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But might have to be rewritten, per Wee Curry Monster. /Julle (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Julle: I have basically entirely rewritten the article. Whatever is left of the original is only a few words. GMG ^talk 23:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also ping @Wee Curry Monster: for the same reason. GMG ^talk 23:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per sources listed. Livinginthepink (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Hninthuzar (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, lets all pile on (one way to keep warm if you're in north america:)), meets WP:BIO, article reflects this with numerous WP:RS. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
talk) 15:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Plenty of references. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per refs, per WP:GNG. WP:HEY. BabbaQ (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to
(non-admin closure) ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 21:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Oberrottenführer

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

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

Obscure term with no significant coverage in RS. Possibly redirect to Rottenfuhrer or "Ranks and insignia of the Hitler Youth", if the latter article is kept. b uidhe 18:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
Ranks and insignia of the Hitler Youth if kept, otherwise to Hitler Youth (or subsection within). Is a plausible search term. Present article doesn't cite sources (though a search does show some - e.g. this seems like a RS at first blush). No reason to think this individual rank in Hitler youth is notable.Icewhiz (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Not sufficiently notable for an article of its own and no significant RS coverage (the RS found by Icewhiz is not available for viewing to me, so I can't tell if there's anything in-depth in it). Redirect to
Ranks and insignia of the Hitler Youth if that's kept, otherwise Redirect to Hitler Youth but only if there's a mention of the term merged into that article per the way its AFD is going. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
My citation merely supports the existence of the rank in the Hitlerjugend rank structure - there's a list there (ordered by rank) on page 60 + drawings of the shoulder marks of each the 18 ranks in the next page (61) - nothing in-depth (does not preclude there being in-depth sourcing elsewhere, however per Hitler Youth's readable prose size of 16Kb - I would still think this should be addressed there prior to a spinout).Icewhiz (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. Yes, I agree. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
Ranks and insignia of the Hitler Youth article, IF it is not kept (which, as I have stated in discussion is not needed for a stand alone page and it looks as if the AfD for the "Ranks" page will go that way). No doubt this HJ rank existed, but not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: obscure enough that a redirect is not necessary. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are free. Anything that helps someone find a term, however obscure, is useful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Oberrottenführer" does not appear in the Hitler Youth article; it's generally not a good practice to redirect to a page that does not mention the topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please read what
Ranks and insignia of the Hitler Youth is not kept then it will clearly be merged with Hitler Youth. The term will therefore appear in one article or the other. Why are you so keen to get this completely deleted? I'm mystified, to be honest. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I've read what Icewhiz said. If someone wants to add sourced material to the Hitler Youth page and then create a redirect, I don't think anyone would object. Until then, there's no point in having a redirect when the target page does not mention the topic. Why are you so intent on getting this redirected now? I'm perplexed, to be honest. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now merged. Redirect to Hitler Youth. Voila! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either
WP:CHEAP, anyways. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

AfD Update - The "ranks and insignias" AfD has closed with a merge to Hitler Youth. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW and previous keeps. No reason to keep this open longer since no valid rationale for deletion has been proposed.
(non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Sealioning

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Sealioning

Articles for deletion/Sea lioning

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

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

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}}.

This is a definition and an etymology, and belongs on wiktionary. Not noteworthy or substantial enough for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tempowaryacc (talk • contribs) — Tempowaryacc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

~~Keep~~ Speedy Keep All of the reasons for deletion listed above except one are not valid reasons to delete an article. The one valid reason (not notable) has the obvious problem that the existing references establish notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This page is not written as a dictionary entry; sourcing is more than adequate to establish notability; the motivation for this AfD (by a single-purpose account) is dubious and no steps less drastic than nominating for deletion were taken first. XOR'easter (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is clearly established by the references. As mentioned by XOR'easter, the article explains a concept and is not a dictionary definition. Johnuniq (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nowhere on this page or any sourced page is it articulated just what is so nefarious about people asking civilly for evidence of an unsourced claim. Are we supposed to take the author's word that all those people are evil trolls and the unsourced claim is somehow more credible than every other unsourced claim on the internet?

Aside from the definition itself is the notability issue. I see in the suggested links that this is somehow related to the Gamergate controversy. I don't think editors realize the impression this gives to people who aren't involved in Wikipedia daily. Wikipedia is not hard up for donations and new users because it desperately lacks Gamergate or Twitter content. The one time in my life I was ever interested in joining Wikipedia and really learning the interface and policies happened to be around the time the controversy page was created. It made me question who would want to come home from work just to edit war about that stuff for hours. The same 5-10 people probably, day after day. I bet if I checked the page history today, it would be the exact same users who were there years ago.

I would rather my girlfriend walk in on me watching porn than see me edit this page. Delete this article. Stop the madness. I don't know how to put my I.P. address here but this is where it should go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:8600:90B8:A8BF:99A0:6B91:A0B7 (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC) — 2601:192:8600:90B8:A8BF:99A0:6B91:A0B7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Unless you are tied to a chair with your head in a clamp, your eyes taped open, a self-refreshing Wikipedia feed on a monitor, and the Wikipedia Song blaring into your ears, nobody is forcing you to edit or even read our sealioning page, so if you feel that you are being subjected to something that you find to be unpleasant, you only have yourself to blame.

If you are tied to a chair, etc., let me address your captors: First, keep up the good work. Second, please take away his keyboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Clearly passes GNG. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep AfD From a single-purpose account? Don't feed the trolls. ApLundell (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was already an AfD for this page a year ago. It was kept then, and the topic has only gained more sources since. Are we done yet? XOR'easter (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
WP:RECENTISM. Andrew D. (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Pardon me, but I couldn't help but overhear... I would like to have a civil conversation about your statement that sealioning and nagging are the same thing. The Oxford Dictionary of Social Media [7] defines sealioning as "a disparaging term for the confrontational practice of leaping into an online discussion with endless demands for answers and evidence", but the main Oxford dictionary[8] defines Nag as "Harass (someone) constantly to do something that they are averse to". I'm just curious if you have any sources to back up your opinion? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are grouping ideas according to what they are, which is why this is not a section in the article about the pinnipeds of the family Otariidae. XOR'easter (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A merge would be a bad idea. They're related concepts, but Sealioning is not a subset of nagging. If the merge went through, editors at nagging would correctly realize that the new material was irrelevant to the article and remove it. That kind of incorrect merge is tantamount to a deletion. ApLundell (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - well-sourced, and no valid reasons provided for deletion. --bonadea contributions talk 14:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - sources are fine, article is short but much more than just a dictionary definition - no problems. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:38, 28 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. Fenix down (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sumit Rathi

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

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

Fails
Fram (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Fails
WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kwame Owusu-Ansah

Kwame Owusu-Ansah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Insufficient
NACTOR. If notability is established, a total rewrite is also needed because it reads like an advert. SITH (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - plenty of in-depth coverage in
WP:BEFORE nominating.Tamsier (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I have added refs and content.Tamsier (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete These sources don’t provide notability as an actor. Trillfendi (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the above sources aren't sufficient, here's a biographical article about him in a Ghanaian film media magazine. I'll admit, I got lucky on this one, because very little regional print media shows up in online searches. Regardless, he was a significant actor in Ghanaian and Nigerian media during his life, and his death attracted considerable media attention. The article is in pretty bad shape, but AFD isn't cleanup. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a pass of
talk) 01:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination though I suggest separate nominations. Courtesy ping StraussInTheHouse. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tales Of Nazir

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

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

Fails
film notability guidelines
. I am also nominating two similar articles made by the same user for the same reason:

Agyakoo Gbegbentus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Potato Potahto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sidechic Gang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The fourth of these articles details a film which did receive some award nominations but these awards in themselves are not notable and hence are not enough to satisfy
WP:NFILM
. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment There were several more articles similar to these four, very short stubs about a Ghanaian film with scant sources, all by the same editor. In the majority of these cases that I've seen, I was able to find other coverage either in a web search or in a Google Scholar search that indicated that the subject met NFILM. That having been said, I was unable to find such coverage for Tales of Nazir or Agyakoo Gbegbentus, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone better versed in Ghanaian RS could dig something up. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:NFILM. SITH (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I wasn't trying to cast aspersions, just pointing out that the set of similar articles is larger than the ones nominated here. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and my own inability to find any RS coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
African Movie Academy Awards. Am neutral about the other two films, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The film meets the third criterion of
WP:NFO. It was nominated in several categories at the 2018 AMAA; Actress Joke Silva actually won an award for her portrayal in the film. The movie premiered at the Cannes Film Festival and the Durban International Film Festival. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?}

Comment I'm unsure how to vote as this time as it appears that Potato Potahto is notable, while notability concerns remain for Tales of Nazir and Agyakoo Gbegbentus_signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. My previous keep !vote was solely about the movie Potato Potahto. Agyakoo Gbegbentus isn't a notable film; A Google search of the film doesn't show it being discussed in reliable sources. Sidechic Gang on the other hand appears to be semi-notable; although the film didn't receive reliable reviews, it was nominated for several awards at the 2018
AMAA. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note to closer: I have a feeling this is going on (or off) the same
rails as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axe of Vengeance. Both were crappy bundlings, for which I apologise. I see that the community prefers more separate AfDs as opposed to fewer tenuously linked bundles nominations. If you close it as trainwreck, please ping me so I can renominate the appropriate ones per the above consensus. Thanks, SITH (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Keep. Withdrawn. The ref noted below looks sufficient for this to pass GNG.
(non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Steve Baer

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

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

Tagged for notability since 2015. WP:Before isn't returning much (although it is quite a common name). The refs in the article don't say much and the external links appear to be for amusement. Szzuk (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[13] Search for his name and what he is known for, Zome, and you get some results to look through. Is he notable or just quoted or mentioned in passing at times because of his work with domes? A lot to read through and nothing standing out so far. Dream Focus 13:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep — The citations already given in the article were sufficient to meet
WP:SURMOUNTABLE issues not relevant to AfD. I added a ref to an 85 page chapter in the book Groovy Science: Knowledge, Innovation, and American Counterculture that covers Baer extensively, and a couple mentions in other publications. Cited sources verify that Baer is an expert in solar energy and domes who popularized these concepts and made significant contributions to the field. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:19, 28 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. Fenix down (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guillem Jaime

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

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

Fails
FC Barcelona B, who play in Segunda División B; WP:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues says only La Liga and Segunda División are considered 'fully professional leagues' in Spain for the purposes of establishing notability. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Matthew hk (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a non-notable footballer. Having gone through most of the articles in the 1990 births category though I have seen so many under sourced Wikipedia articles that I begin to despair we can ever bring the project into a reasonable shape.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 28 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Enrico Williams

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

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

Non notable crypto business person with almost no actual coverage and created and move warred by an SPA. Fails GNG. Praxidicae (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as a magazine publisher (since Tramp Magazine does not, in itself, appear to be notable). Not notable as a cryptocurrency trader (sources related to this endeavor appear to be largely self-published). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are is a dearth of persistent and in-depth coverage in reliable sources to pass the minimum requirements of
Wikipedia rip offs. ——SerialNumber54129 15:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - David Gerard (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been re-written. Non-cryptocurrency news, non-primary and Reliable sources have been researched and incorporated into the article to pass GNG, like this article in the Evening Standard, which notes that "the brothers’ first newspaper interview" and "Update [28 December 2018]: Representatives of 50 Cent have contacted the Evening Standard to say that 50 Cent is not a friend of Sam and Steve Williams. We are happy to update matters"

The Daily Express which notes that Sam Enrico Williams, of cryptocurrency due diligence platform Zloadr.com, told Express.co.uk: “The crypto market is still extremely volatile so you need to keep an eye on your assets 24/7.“The market can be brutal.
Other notable resources that prove the validity of this are Metro, Face 2 Face and others, moreover the sources are independent.

The idea of Tramp Magazine is no-longer an equation in the current article since re-writing has removed it WikiDan61 and I have concerns on the ability of someone self publishing in the Evening Standard or even the Express.

These resources have a chain of article editing/editors with the Evening Standard lead editor being George Osborne, Daily Express lead editor is Gary Jones just to mention a few of the resources used. These resources do not fall in the category of
Tabloid Journalism

WP:ANYBIO Serial Number 54129 David Gerardare basically additional GNGs and I will quote Wikipedia,People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.Christopher Odhiambo (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Strongly Keep Someone to justify the deletion claims after the article has been re-edited?~~Christopher Odhiambo (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]
You can comment as many times as you want but you can only vote once. GPL93 (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with WikiDan61 VViking_TalkEdits 14:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per
WP:PROMO as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The article is relevant and references abide with Wiki's GNG policy. This bio does qualify for an individual who has achieved notability and widely published. I could go into the facts, but they are clearly visible themselves. Looking again, it is clear that the issues raised seem to be without merit; but personal endeavors are being expressed. Sources submitted for the article are from well-respected publications. If the content written comes across as so-called promo, easily make amendments to the copy otherwise state clearly and show an example of where promo is being considered as a genuine reason for deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.52.36.59 (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this IP address has only contributed to this AfD and the AfD for Williams’ company, this vote may be a case of
WP:SOCK. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, per WikiDan61, Serial Number 54129, et al. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 18:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The user who started the article has now been indefinitely blocked for UPE, COI, and accusing others of COI's. Kb03 (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, but article is still in need of Clean Up.
(non-admin closure) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Ajana Sima: The X Boundary

Ajana Sima: The X Boundary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails
WP:NBOOK. Published in November 2018. Reception has some online self-publishing platform ratings as a reception. Looks promotional. No article about author (in draft) but articles about his books are there. Has be PROD before and User:Pinakpani had questioned notability on Talk. Nizil (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep - there is some third party source links-

http://www.sobkhabar.com/%E0%A6%A4%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%A6%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%AC%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AF%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%AA%E0%A7%80-%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%A7%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A8-%E0%A6%B2%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%9F/

https://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2018/11/author-suman-sens-bengali-sci-fi-book-will-release-23rd-november

http://www.abekshan.com/প্রকাশ-পেল-অজানা-সীমাঃ-the-x-boundary/

https://www.shahittobarta.com/p/487

http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2499018

I will update more sources. Bloody Knight Rider (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, Ajana Sima: The X Boundary is among the very few science fiction books written in Bengali language. I am providing a link as a source, https://www.khaboronline.com/kolkata-book-fair/preview-of-selected-books/is-golden-era-of-bengali-science-fiction-coming-back/ Netai90 (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Wrong forum. GoldenRing (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Konstantin Sidorov (2)

Draft:Konstantin Sidorov (2) (edit | [[Talk:Draft:Konstantin Sidorov (2)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article has been nominated for speedy deletion twice but rejected both times; however, IMO it is doubtful that it meets GNG but assessment requires someone able to deal with Russian sources. GoldenRing (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nominator @
talk) 17:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@
Bakazaka: Bah, yes, sorry. GoldenRing (talk) 12:52, 29 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. Michig (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher C. Lee

Christopher C. Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject of the article, Christopher C. Lee, fails to meet notability criteria per
WP:CREATIVE. A web search reveals mostly primary sources and no reliable secondary sources that indicate that he is widely known or has significantly contributed to the overall field of photography. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as I could find no WP:RS to Verify any of the claims. Seems like a hard working commercial photographer, who has done some work for notable clients, but none of that satisfies the requirements here. NB he self-published both of the books listed as "bestselling" --Theredproject (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage focused on Lee himself to pass
WP:GNG. GPL93 (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I don't see evidence of notability. -- Hoary (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Despite !voting multiple times, those advocating to keep this have not demonstrated that the subject meets any of our guidelines for notability. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Osadolor Nate Asemota

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

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

Apparently non-notable person. The draft has twice been declined for that reason, but the article creator thinks otherwise and has again moved it to mainspace. COI has been denied here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would like to thank User:Justlettersandnumbers for avoiding a move-war by not draftifying this page again and instead taking it to AFD.

Comment - This draft reads as if it was written with a
non-neutral
writing about a marginally notable person. Therefore:

Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was return to mainspace because the initial issue which is copyright was Resolved under the Wikipedia
Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License and GNU Free Documentation License. and lifted from the page, meanwhile possible measure is taking by modification and improving the page hence I seek that the page should not be deleted instead needs help on effecting the possible changes to qualify it.Amosflash (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The subject would appear to be more commonly known as "Dr Dolor":

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

Phil Bridger (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - I agree with
Teni (entertainer), this is enough evidence that the subject does not belong to non notable person as proposed by Justlettersandnumbers, I feel improving on the page should be considered instead of deletion.Amosflash (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I had also searched and there are reliable sources i found on the subject notability and going through the editing history, its obvious that the author is improving on the page thereby effecting the proposed conflict of interest, I feel keeping the page is the best for the case. Thank you!Jacwizy (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jacwizy, Amosflash, could you please clarify whether there is some connection between you? I notice that both when Amosflash created this page and when Jacwizy created Ada Ehi, the other showed up within an hour or so; at Dorcas Shola-Fapson the interval was more than 24 hours. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You also both edited Shuga (season 3): Shuga Naija within a few minutes of each other. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't have any physical or virtual connection, it might be either coincidental or might have some pages on watchlist, either of the latter I have no idea, and I've seen an admin edit my several created pages simultaneously.Amosflash (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ i have edited the article, as it is now, proper sources have been made, with the writing skill to avoid conflict of interest thereby effecting the proposed changes.Amosflash (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

struck duplicate vote. Nightfury 12:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rv close by myself, as asked by Justlettersandnumbers - Overlooked dupe vote. As an aside if an editor does also have a concern about another voter, they need to say so otherwise this may be overlooked by an uninvolved closer. Thanking you
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 12:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks are due to
WP:ANYBIO: they appear to be almost exclusively blogs and social media outlets. I'm sure Bishonen would agree it's times like this we more than ever miss Oluwa2Chainz... ——SerialNumber54129 12:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Although the author obviously makes all efforts to improve the article, which should be applauded, effort alone does unfortunately not qualify an article for the English Wikipedia. I can't give a fully confident vote, as I know little about the quality / category of Nigerian newspapers / websites, but my initial search any any following search hasn't turned up any results (including for "Dr. Dolor"). Sources are mostly blog entries, as already mentioned, and seem to have been written
notability in either case. --Ruhri Jörg 13:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Keep~~ based on your my initial search there is reliable sources revealing the subject for establishing a platform that aids
very close to the subject, I will tell you that this newspapers organization works with professional writer that understand the element of misinformation or writing in self interest as ill to the society, I believe their reports meet the standard of the organization as verifiable entity.Ruhri Jörg your contribution is welcome as we all are working hard to make Wikipedia better, I also suggest that you have little or not knowledgeable in the subject being discussed.Amosflash (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@Amosflash: That is the third time you have !voted. You only have one; please don't do that again. ——SerialNumber54129 15:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:GNG, its obvious that the subject is better know as Dr Dolor and has few reliable sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaizenify (talk • contribs
)

Delete. The subject hasn't done enough to warrant stand-alone inclusion. The references in the article or online do not show his career being discussed extensively. As a matter of fact, the subject has only released two or three non-notable singles. Being affliated with a notable artist doesn't make one notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:BASIC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Recursion (computer science). A viable merger requires verifiable content in the source that isn't already covered in the target: the presence of such information has not been demonstrated here. However, I am not deleting the history, and anyone who believes they can retrieve anything worthwhile is free to try to do so. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recursion termination

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

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

The article's content is already present in
Recursion termination doesn't provide any new information). The article is poorly written, doesn't have reliable inline citations, and wasn't worked upon (except for small edits) for 10 years. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into
WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge as above. StrayBolt (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no objection to a merge, but I am afraid it will change almost nothing in
Recursion termination is already present in Recursion (computer science)#Factorial. The fibonacci example could of course be added as yet another recursive function. By the way: both examples fail to notice that the functions will not terminate when called with a negative agument. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Recursion (computer science) per the above observations by the OP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
talk) 03:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Recursion (computer science). I don't see anything worth merging. MarkH21 (talk) 04:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ITF Junior Ranking for Asia/Oceania

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/ITF Junior Ranking for Asia/Oceania

Articles for deletion/ITF Junior Ranking for Asia/Oceania (2nd nomination)

ITF Junior Ranking for Asia/Oceania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

We don't have the junior rankings for the World or other regions, no reason to show Asia/Oceania, only has 3 players in current top-20.[14] Only source is dead link to official site. No ranking updates since the 2012 creation (except vandalism), none of these are juniors for many years. Embarrasing in the current form with undated ancient rankings and "Women's Ranking coming soon" for 7 years. Juniors are called Girls. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and
WP:NOTSTATS. Iffy★Chat -- 20:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and comments by Iffy. Completely trivial in nature. Adamtt9 (talk) 17:53, 31 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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. In assessing this discussion I have discounted the last pro-keep comment as it has no basis in WP:PAG. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jaka Železnikar

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

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

Tagged for notability since 2017. A Slovene national whose Slovenian page is in similar vein to the English one. He is known for net art and Firefox addons. I translated the refs and googled him, they don't support GNG. Few edits since creation in 2005. Szzuk (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 21:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 21:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 21:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 21:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep the article is not in such great shape, it is true. However he is notable for having made a significant contribution to the field of early "net art" and computer-based art. There were not so many artists using the Internet at its beginning (Vuk Cosic, Olia Lialina, etc.), and he appears to have been a player in that early field. I can say this because I found enough sources that position him as one. The journal article with his name in the title points to this as well. Without speaking or understanding Slovenian, here is what I managed to find:

[[ https://www.rtvslo.si/kultura/razstave/elektronska-eksperimentalna-literatura-opazena-na-twitterju/236771 Slovenian News coverage]]

Spanish Book mention

A half-page description of a piece he made, in "Theory Into Poetry: New Approaches to the Lyric“

A journal article: [[ https://elmcip.net/critical-writing/literary-aspects-new-media-art-works-jaka-zeleznikar-and-sreco-dragan%7C“Literary Aspects of the New Media Art Works by Jaka Železnikar and Srečo Dragan“]]

Brief mention in “New Literary Hybrids in the Age of Multimedia Expression: Crossing borders"

Included in the Italian book “REFF, RomaEuropa FakeFactory: la reinvenzione del reale attraverso pratiche…"
talk) 02:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I've added eleven sources to the article and cleaned it up. In my reading it became clear that he is well-known in Slovenia but not so much outside of it. Well known anywhere is notable by our standards.
talk) 05:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

comment I'm probably not going to vote on this, as I try to stay away from subjects who are too close to my own work. I will point out that amongst the artists own list of exhibitions [15] it appears he lists Net_condition, which is a very important show and frankly could/should have its own wikipedia page (and one that has come to define the Net.Art cohort), but he is not amongst the list of artists on the ZKM site.[16] He notes it as "TheLounge, NetShop" which was a lecture series as part of Net_condition [17] but again, he is not listed. He was active in the Net.Art scene, but his work has not been included in the exhibitions or histories of the movement. --Theredproject (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thank you for your work in finding and listing sources,
qualify. Any of my searches didn't turn up other sources either (but of course my Slovenian is a bit rusty;)). I think Theredproject said the rest there was to say... --Ruhri Jörg 13:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep,
WP:GNG. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep to demonstrate the global widespread of net art and to avoid anglocentrism. --Hladnikm (talk) 07:27, 29 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) 23:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

5ive (web series)

5ive (web series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Apparent failure of
independent, reliable sources. SITH (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article was nominated on a not-so-great premise as seen from the multiple nominations from the nom. I can see a review from Nollywood Reinvented. Seem to boderline pass NFILMS to me. I can understand if anyone disagrees, but it shouldn't be from this AFD. HandsomeBoy (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The web series appears to be somewhat notable. Both YNaija and Nollywood Reinvented wrote a critical review of it. Pulse Nigeria included the series on their list of the Top 5 TV and web series of 2017. In Nigeria, there are no major media platforms that write about TV series. Most major newspapers in Nigeria concentrate solely on politics. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would say the sources demonstrated are sufficient to prove notability. While they are only narrowly over the boundary, as both are clearly suitable, I feel a "full" keep is correct. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Weak Keep. Editors did establish article's notability within their field, but there should be no prejudice to a second nomination a year from now.
(non-admin closure) ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 22:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Audacious Inquiry

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

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

Article version nominated for deletion → https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Audacious_Inquiry&oldid=878321113

Does not meet
WP:NORG, all coverage appears to either be routine business press (hirings and firings, fundraising, etc.), interviews with executives, or press releases from the company (albeit published in many different publications). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Routine coverage (general announcements), press releases, and brief mentions. Falls short of
WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

09:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep - Among press, the Modern Healthcare article mentions that the subject company built the PULSE software which is also the subject of the story in Wired. Both are national and significant publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.85.56.242 (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the sources just added to the article, I stand by my earlier assessment. All coverage in RS is mere-mentions either attesting briefly to the company's involvement in an event or citing the company's spokespersons' opinions on a topic. I have yet to see any article which addresses the subject in detail. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thank you for the feedback. Added Inc. Magazine profile on the subject as a reference, which speaks to the subject as part of the Inc. "hall of fame." The other RS examples illustrate the work of the company and the significance of that work. (e.g. Pew Research Center report, Florida government source) The David Raths profile (reference 3) is also in depth on the subject. Thank you for considering. _signed,Flaco c (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding citation #3, Healthcare Informatics doesn't list any editorial information and looks to me like a PR site, which would mean that it is not a reliable source. Additionally, inclusion in the Inc. hall of fame does not contribute toward notability per the section "Examples of trivial coverage" in
WP:ORGCRITE for guidelines as to when an article contributes toward notability for a company. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

thank you. Shouldn't the Florida state government agency announcement (pdf) about the subject, the subject's service, and the service users qualify as a RS? (Independent, secondary, significant, reliable). Healthcare informatics editorial board is found here: https://www.healthcare-informatics.com/page/editorial-board It is a reputable publication in healthcare IT - with substantial readership... (fwiw) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdbrandt (talk • contribs) 03:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added one additional source, a profile of the subject by technically media, a regional news outlet. I believe that the Baltimore Sun article, technically article, and healthcare informatics profile each provide substantial coverage of the subject and would seemingly qualify as verifiable, independent, reliable, secondary sources. In sum, the multiple threshold for
WP:NORG should be met, with these additions. Thank you for the feedback and consideration. _signed,Flaco c (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Promotionalarticle, with referneces based on PR, and local news stories. No indication of general importance, at least at present. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, thank you for the opportunity to learn more about WP's policies on article deletion and notability. I've been educating myself on the process, but am still a newbie at this aspect of WP's process. Second, let me put out there some personal biases: I've worked with Audacious Inquiry and oversaw some of their work on health information exchange in Maryland. I know the leadership team. I've not worked for them directly and have no personal skin in the question of deleting this article. I have a good sense of why this article is being considered for deletion as there are questions about the significance of the organization and its contributions to date. More importantly, it is difficult to determine the substance and reliability of the references cited. As an informatics professional focused on health information exchange, when I speak professionally I often cite Ai's Encounter Notification Service as one of the most substantial technical advances in our field in terms of its practical impact on patient outcomes. But we are challenged with a disconnect between what appears in scholarly articles, which may cite the value of encounter notifications, and the business articles which mention the companies developing the solutions but don't have the same perceived reliability. Informatics is an emerging field and, like other esoteric domains, it is hard to distinguish reliable sources from PR-driven sources. Healthcare Informatics is the closest journalistic outlet we have to an industry-focused publication with an independent staff and publication board. Would it be helpful to cite scholarly publications that discuss encounter notifications in regions where Ai's technology and services are used even if Ai isn't specifically mentioned? Rmartinmd (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company is an established, going concern and recognized as such by numerous, non-promotional secondary sources, including Inc, Wired and a local daily newspaper. Any primary, owned channels cited are ancillary to meeting the larger NORG notability criteria. BMuys ----

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added Bloomberg profile as a source / reference. Added a 2013 "business insider" article as an ancillary source. (subject is one of nine companies profiled.) Thanks for continued feedback. Flaco c (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability established — There's sufficient material to support notability, though a substantial proportion of the sources are incidental mentions. Also, there has been the propensity for an author to not use the title of a cited piece but rather use some interpretation of how the source supports the article as the title. This is not the right way to source information, and I've revised some if not most of these; there are still citations I've not revised remaining which need review and revision. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
HighKing⁺⁺ 16:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Audacious Inquiry is obviously a notable company in their field.
talk) 13:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Achiva nidhi

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

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

not a notable company Unicorn212 (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 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) 10:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Previous instances were deleted as promotional and rejected drafts. I can't see these versions but the AfC rejection comment is as relevant to the current version: "The current draft only includes four sources, one of which is the official website. This is insufficient to demonstrate that the subject has received sustained coverage in reliable independent sources required to establish notability.". The routine registration listings provided as references do no more than verify that the company is legally going about its business, and my searches are finding no better than more of the same. Fails
WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the inbuilt sources, or any sources elsewhere, satisfy all the requirements - let alone reaching the high level needed for
WP:NCORP. No evident redirect target. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was soft delete.
WP:REFUND applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

SCDA Architects

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

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

Unclear where notability lies here. This is a firm or architects so its not surprising to find sources about buildings where they are mentioned - that is what is expected. However, these references do not discuss the firm of architects, except in passing, it is the buildings and developers they discuss. This appears to be a competent firm of architects who are not yet notable in Wikipedia terms. Fails
WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:09, 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) 10:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I don't think they are particularly notable. The sources are name drops. Fails
WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 15:38, 31 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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination Ad Orientem (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Polina Kuklina

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Polina Kouklina

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

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

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

I tried to do a Before to see if I could improve this article in any way before PRODD but the Notability tag is right. No sources found at all. Trillfendi (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 22:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 22:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 22:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Note the alternate spelling "Polina Kouklina", which is the name under which the article was kept at a previous AfD in 2010. I've added the link to that AfD, and a second "find sources" template for the alternate spelling.
talk) 22:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I’m looking at that AfD and it’s astounding how the article was kept with absolutely no research done beforehand. It’s like they walked passed the movie theater usher without even showing the ticket. Trillfendi (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added one reference I found, that verifies that she modelled for Alexander McQueen. I also found an interview in Elle, which I can't see a date for [18], and a blogpost [19] that says that Marie-Claire France had a 10 page spread on her in their June 2011 issue. However, it seems that someone would need access to a print copy of that issue, as it's not online. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could almost laugh. That Elle France “interview” is literally just 5 beauty tips under her name. Nothing remotely mentions her career. The “Switching models” blog is not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination, it’s just somebody’s hobby. So out of all the jobs this article has said she’s done, the only thing that can be verified is Alexander McQueen via picture book. This is the shit I’m talking about. This is why I propose articles for deletion. Trillfendi (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was not suggesting that the blog was a source, I said that it refers to an issue of Marie-Claire which has a 10 page spread on her. That IS a source, one which is not online, but which WP:NEXISTs. You may also note, if you have looked at the actual article, that I did not add the Elle interview as a reference, precisely because it is an interview. However, I disagree that it is not related to her career - she is a model, and how she maintains her beauty is directly relevant to her career. RebeccaGreen (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it wasn’t added. It’s pointless. It offers nothing of value, nothing more than trivia about beauty proucts she likes, e.g. Shu Uemura (if she was the face of one of the companies it’d be a different story). They didn’t even brother to put a picture. Millions of women do the same thing on YouTube these days. Trillfendi (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Mgbo120 (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable person. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe she meets WP:NMODEL. It really concerns me how much these AfDs rely on what can be found online. Some evidence for her career is available online (eg walking for Alexander McQueen, modelling for Nina Ricci), but much more is in print magazines. If we had access to a full run of Vogue, Elle, Marie-Claire, Cosmopolitan, etc, we would be able to cite article titles, issue and page numbers, etc. I don't have that access, listings of the relevant magazines on ecommerce sites or scans on blogs are not considered reliable, but the sources WP:NEXIST. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know why people keep thinking magazine editorials aren’t available online when the industry went digital eons ago. The problem is you’re looking for page numbers when editorials are found by title and photographer, if one doesn’t know the name of those then it’s hard to find. Even still if there’s no reliable source for it it doesn’t matter. Scraping the absolute bottom of the barrel just can’t save this article. Trillfendi (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Along with the coverage RebeccaGreen has found, I've also found two more sources that cover the article subject:

Squires, Mark. (2005). All through the night: A smoky bar, a grand piano, and a girl in this season's dramatic looks to steal your heart. Interview, 35(8), 202.

Karimzadeh, Mark. (2005). Nina Ricci Dives in with Ads. WWD, 189(16), 8.

I consider there to be sufficient coverage, per WP:NEXIST, for this to be kept. feminist (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You honestly consider two sources, these two no less, to be "sufficient”? For this entire article? Out of all the jobs claimed here only 2 have been "found"? But not accessible? This is what’s wrong with NEXIST. The existence of something isn’t the viabiliy of something. Y’all act as though her career is pre-Internet. Trillfendi (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Trillfendi, I don't know how you think you know how I was searching for this person ("The problem is you’re looking for page numbers when editorials are found by title and photographer, if one doesn’t know the name of those then it’s hard to find.") Why on earth would I look for page numbers? I found and added the Marie-Claire France editorial, by searching for her name! If you know of the location of digitised archives of fashion magazines, please share that with us. As far as I have been able to see, some pages of some issues have been archived on the Wayback Machine, but there is certainly not a full run. And no, feminist did not say that she considered two sources to be sufficient for the entire article, she said "Along with the coverage RebeccaGreen has found". Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing everyone who actually finds sources for the articles you nominate for AfD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simply stating my opinion based on the s of the matter isn’t "bludgeoning" — no one is "forcing" you to change your mind about anything. I’m sure you can think for yourself. What I obviously said is anyone can see editorials by using Google Images, I was talking about finding the reliable source for it. Archives are usually on the website of a magazine but they’re not always there with mid-tier publications. So still, even given those circumstances she doesn’t even meet NMODEL for one possibility of a job, a picture book, and 2 invisble sources that don’t even cover her career. There was already a general notability tag there before I even proposed deletion. Trillfendi (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a question about your opinion, @
talk) 23:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
In my honest belief, no. Trillfendi (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's helpful to know, since it means that finding the sources verifying those activities will not actually address your concern. It looked like two good faith editors were talking past each other, so maybe this will help clarify things.
talk) 00:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Then why do you mention the lack of sources in your nomination? Why do you say that the sources are not reliable and not sufficient? I still think that she meets WP:NMODEL, and that finding reliable sources that verify enough of her work is sufficient to establish that. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That’s just my opinion, while I recognize that if people want to keep the article then notability has to be established and consummate sources have to be found. I don’t think she had a broad enough sustained career to meet WP:NMODEL. I even resorted to seeing if there was an NYMag profile, but unfortunately not. Trillfendi (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Equal votes, no prejudice on early closure
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this articles is worth having. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT isn’t valid commentary. Trillfendi (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: Okay, then the reasons that I give for keeping this article is because it has good sources, and this model has made covers of fashion magazines from four different countries, which I surely DO consider keep worthy. But you are right that I didn't give a good enough reason for keeping this article the first time, but I have now. Also the sources and reasons that the people who want to keep this article are giving seem fine to me as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to play the devil’s advocate, but I’m struggling to see how appearances counted on one hand, a picture book, or one name mention in an aggregated article mitigates the notability tag. Thanks for contributing, nonetheless. Trillfendi (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this site has numerous scans of covers/shoots, so she has been/was (looking at her website it looks like she is now behind the camera instead of in front of it) a model for a number of years, but unfortunately not significant enough to meet WP:NMODEL. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources are enough to establish WP:NMODEL. And WP:GNG applies as well. The additional sources discovered by other editors on this AfD also covers WP:NEXIST. BabbaQ (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GNG? You’ve got to be kidding... (by virtue of the that the notability tag has been there for 9 years clearly that is not the case at all.) Trillfendi (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've got to be kidding.. The Keep-side has given great rationales for their !votes. While those who wants it Deleted has done drive-by "Non notable" rationales without substance. BabbaQ (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BabbaQ: Clearly you were the one lacking “substance”. On the last AfD of this you claimed just being a model was enough to keep this article. You presented no substance to keep it. The notability factor has NOT been addressed since! For 9 years, it’s been sitting there because the only source has been Fashion Model Directory which is not a reliable source. General notability is evidently NOT there! Not even an interview; one could even settle for a “Model Call” interview if it was out there. None of the sources added since contribute to notability in any way shape or form by even the most basic of standards. Appearance doesn’t equal notability especially given the fact that no one can manage to find “notable” work that aren’t on Pinterest scans by some random user. The people who have voted to delete have voted on the obvious failing of WP:GNG. The people who have voted to keep seem to think having your name mentioned in just one sentence is “enough” for notability. The reality is: it is not. Not for a model. Not for anyone. Trillfendi (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - there's evidence of appearances in major publications, including a Vogue.it link I just added, which starts to satisfy WP:NMODEL. However, I also like to see some biographical coverage that can be used to build a properly sourced article. That doesn't exist. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article size is irrelevant to notability. If what is stated in the article is sourced and deemed notable and within guidelines it is notable for Keep. BabbaQ (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sources have been posted, nominator nor anyone else has refuted and actually gained a support.
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Wish 107.5 Music Awards

Wish 107.5 Music Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I do not see any independent evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 21:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 21:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 21:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 21:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi, this awards event has been recognized by multiple media outlets.
talk) 15:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)elivic[reply
]

References

^ "Morissette wins big in Wish Music Awards". ABSCBN. January 17, 2019. Retrieved January 19, 2019.

^ "Here are the winners of the 4th Wish 107.5 Music Awards". Bandwagon. January 17, 2019. Retrieved January 19, 2019.

^ "4th Wish 107.5 Music Awards: Complete List of Winners". Wish 107.5. January 15, 2019. Retrieved January 19, 2019.

^ "FULL LIST: Winners: Wish 107.5 Music Awards". Rappler. January 26, 2016. Retrieved January 1, 2019.

^ "Julie Anne San Jose wins at 4th Wish Music Awards". GMA. January 16, 2019. Retrieved January 19, 2019.

UNTV News and Rescue
. January 16, 2019. Retrieved January 19, 2019.

^ "Universal Records Artists Win Big at the 4th Wish Music Awards". INQ POP!. January 17, 2019. Retrieved January 19, 2019.

^ "4th Wish Music Awards donates to winning artists' chosen charities". Yahoo. January 16, 2019. Retrieved January 19, 2019.

^ "WISH MUSIC AWARDS, ISANG PERFECT COMBINATION NG MUSIC AT ADVOCACY". Radyo La Verdad. January 11, 2019. Retrieved January 19, 2019.

^ "Wish Music Awards 2018's spotlight on OPM". Manila Standard. January 4, 2018. Retrieved January 19, 2019.

^ "Iñigo Pascual leads 3rd Wish Music Awards". The Manila Times. January 12, 2018. Retrieved January 19, 2019.

^ "IN PHOTOS: Morissette Amon wins big at Wish Music Awards 2018". PEP.ph. January 17, 2018. Retrieved January 19, 2019.

^ "Wish Music Awards 2018 to spotlight opm". Tempo. Retrieved January 19, 2019.

^ "The 1st Wish 107.5 Music Awards". Orange Magazine. January 8, 2016. Retrieved January 19, 2019.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Not all of the sources provided above are perfect but Rappler, GMA, UNTV and Yahoo are fine. Thats plenty coverage to justify keeping the article.--N Ø 17:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep verified by several independent sources --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:36, 28 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 09:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Faisal Bin Saud Al Qasimi

Sheikh Faisal Bin Saud Al Qasimi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable member of a royal family of the United Arab Emirates. His position as the director of the
the general notability requirement. Pichpich (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment My vote is Delete since there are just 15 press mentions on Google News and all of them are just trivial mentions. I would ask, however, to evaluate Arabian mentions. There could be some trusted Arabian sources showing the depth of coverage and the importance of this person for the Dubai's royal family. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great point. I will ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arab world. Pichpich (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment Unless being a member of the UAE royal family grants automatic notability, there's nothing to show any other notability standard is met.Sandals1 (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:35, 28 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. The article may now be redirected, if any editor wishes. Mz7 (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Live in the 21st Century

Live in the 21st Century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Whether you want to consider this an album or DVD (or both!), I believe it fails
ALBUM it would satisfy as well. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Nom made by banned editor. Per WP:NMUSIC. BabbaQ (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the nomination was made before the ban, so it is still valid. Richard3120 (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion was created before the user was indefinitely blocked. As such, it remains a valid nomination; it is not some sort of attempt to circumvent the block.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ALBUM, no reviews in reliable sources.--Pontificalibus 09:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, information is worthy of inclusion, by famous band, which is a famous release as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The band may be famous, but there is no indication that this release is famous, or that there are any reliable sources discussing it. Richard3120 (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Quiet Riot#Videography, in the absence of any sources discussing this DVD. Richard3120 (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Did all the normal checks and couldn't find sources. JACKonWIKIS (Talk•My edits) 17:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sound trademark. Sandstein 09:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Signature Sound

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

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

Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH. CNMall41 (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
(talk) 12:12, 28 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 09:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gottipati Satyavani

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I could find were YouTube links. Not sufficient and certainly not reliable Loved150 (talk) 10:55, 28 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 08:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva (Marvel Comics)

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

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

Does not meet
WP:GNG. Page is linked by two non-list non-disambiguation articles. Character appears eight times, according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: S or Weapon X. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 14:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not independently notable and does not meet my criteria for a list entry. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
WP:OR/. --Killer Moff (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sepideh Gholian

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

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

This appears to be
WP:SYN, Fails notability and verifiability, violating copy right and the contributors seem to have a personal connection to the topic. Saff V. (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you look at the references in this articles you can see that the idea that it fails notability is quite ludicrous. As for copy right violation, you should point out which part exactly is in violation and it can be edited. It does not warrant deletion. Finally, a quick look at Saff V.'s page reveals that it is in fact he/she who has a personal connection to the topic of Shia Islam and Shia Islam theocracies such as the Iranian government. Fredrick eagles (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite notable in Iranian media. Ladsgroup^overleg 18:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ladsgroup:, According to which RS?Saff V. (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The entry is well-documented and chronicles the recent arrests of a prominent labor activist, citing multiple sources for claims and quotations. The Notability and Verifiability arguments are simply false. Saff V. claims a personal connection exists between the contributors and the topic; a curious accusation given the objective tone of the entry. Angenne (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You can find several supporting sources about Sepideh Gholian and there are more sources available in foreign-language media esp. Persian,Kian (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kian: Firstly Provide "several supporting sources"! Then, the affixed sources are not RS, NYT is not independent.

Keep per Ladsgroup.--
talk) 00:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Interesting! keep based on the unproven claim!Saff V. (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is enough secondary sources available in Persian for this subject.فرهنگ2016 (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Among persian source, Radio Farda had stressed on this topic while the Verifiability of source is disputed! We have to consider that Sepideh Gholian is not notable, factors of
WP:NOTPROPAGANDA, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing! Saff V. (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

comment: Oh please Amensty International has released statements on this. There is exactly zero problem with verifiability. She is the central figure in a public controversy that caused the Islamic Republic to address the issue of torture and tortured confessions for the very first time. Are you even aware how many books, articles, and reports have been written on this topic?
Sepideh Gholian's?! I think you should stop trying to use Wikipedia as a sopbox, battleground, or vehicle for propaganda for the political ideology that you support and try to look at the facts rationally. Fredrick eagles (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Just by a single source (Amensty), you can not prove the notability!Your comment is just OR and didn't prove any thing.Saff V. (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Way more than a single source. It is Amnesty, Radio Farda, Radio France, France 24, Middle East Monitor, Human Rights Watch etc. Please stop sabotaging this article because of your ideological commitments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredrick eagles (talk • contribs) 11:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article neither fails notability and nor Verifiability and my examination reveals no item in violation of copy right in the article. All items are carefully sourced and the subject falls within the domain of notability defined in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pouyanb (talk • contribs)

Keep There are over 8000 google return search for the name of the subject which well defines the notability of the subject and amnesty international's English report is not the only source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pouyanb (talk • contribs) Duplicate vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2 Vote by one user is not acceptable. Also consider
WP:GNG, It doesn't mater 8000 result in GNG or 80000, the mentioned factors should be covered, Independent of the subject and so on.Saff V. (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep
Amin noubahar (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Oh...voting without providing any reason by user with only 4 edits!Saff V. (talk) 07:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable labour activist/journalist/political-prisoner. Has fawiki entry (with quite a bit of Persian language sources). Has quite a bit of English coverage as evident even in a cursory google news search.
WP:PUBLICFIGURE via her outspoken activism (that got her arrested). Icewhiz (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

NOTE OFF WIKI CANVASSING People seem to be being attracted to this page due to off wiki canvassing on Twitter. (Redacted) Canterbury Tail talk 13:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this AfD as a result of the canvassing complaint at AN/I and I'm sympathetic to people who face off-wiki canvasing when trying to make an improvement. But I have to say, it's pretty evident that reliable sources exist to establish Gholian as a notable individual. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment Thank you, Simonm223. Please also take a look at Ali Nejati, the other article he is trying to have removed. He is a trade unionist whose work has received press coverage since at least 2009 as seen in fa.wikipedia. One of the sources that Saff V. has removed because he has a bad feeling about is a press release from a labor federation with over 50 million members worldwide. Quite honestly, I do not understand his obsession with having these pages removed. Fredrick eagles (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also noticed this article because of the ANI report as Simon did. Looking at the article, the sources already cited are more than sufficient to pass
WP:GNG. I see no reason to delete this. --Jayron 32 14:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep for sure. I have added one more reference from VOA website to empower the notability and validity of the article. The article has been covered deeply by enough valid and reliable individual sources. All parts have been covered and no breach of copyright to conclude there is a violation of copyright. If any they can be corrected. It is clear from the list of references that the article is notable and covered by both English and Farsi media. I like somebody to explain based on which criterion of notability this decision has been made to decide to candidate this article for deletion? And how a user concluded that the creator of this article has a personal connection to the topic?! Gharouni^Talk 14:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment Thank you. Gharouni and Jayron please also take a look at This AfD on Ali Nejati that Saff V. has created. He is intent on deleting Nejati's page but is incapable of providing any rational reason for it. Fredrick eagles (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2019

Keep - easily passes GNG. I was tempted to close this as a snow keep, but I'll allow another admin to decide. Rlendog (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets Wikipedia:Notability, has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Pahlevun (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mutya (calligraphy)

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

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

Mutya is undeserving of a Wikipedia page on the basis that it is a personalized script variation of the official Tagalog script, Baybayin, and that it is designed and practiced by one person with no official credentials that can give authoritative substance to his personal variation. The creation of personalized variations is purely recreational and should not be promoted as anything other than that. In a similar vein, if I were to create my own personalized variation for the Latin alphabet, it would be undeserving of its own page as would this one. The existence of this page implies that there is an officiality associated with this variation, when again in reality only one person primarily uses it. It is in no way appropriate for an encyclopedic website. It sets a false precedent that personalized script variations can have their own Wikipedia page, irregardless of how many people practice it. Furthermore, this page only has one source, a site called Omniglot, which is not an acceptable source under Wikipedia standards. ThePanorama (talk) 06:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I couldn't find anything to support GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 16:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 16:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 16:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Pinging
WP:AFC. ~Kvng (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Not an area I know anything about. Looked like a decent topic with images and all the trappings of a proper topic. If not notable, it's not notable. Legacypac (talk) 15:51, 31 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 08:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giles H. Miller

Giles H. Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This appears to be an obituary with no claim of significance, beyond living to 102 years old and possibly being a donor to a university. Google search finds a professor of the same name in the UK but no notability is clear here.
YO 😜 05:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Importance or signficance not asserted, not notable.--Pontificalibus 06:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a city council member and in other ways a non=notable local leader.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass NPOL or GNG. GPL93 (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 16:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 16:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. This article is "referenced" to two primary sources that cannot support notability at all and one piece of human interest coverage in his local media, which is not enough
WP:GNG — but nothing stated in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have enough reliable source coverage to get over GNG either. Bearcat (talk) 03:57, 29 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of street view services

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of street view services

Articles for deletion/List of street view services (2nd nomination)

List of street view services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fgnievinski (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Clearly a notable topic and this is a useful navigational list.
WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies to this list.--Pontificalibus 08:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. is also mentioned in NOTDIR. This is only partially an index of its own content, most of the article is a linkfarm. I voted delete in the last AfD but am subject to retention if this can be dealt with. Ajf773 (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the article needs improvement, I'm not sure it should even be organsied by country. However Google Street View, MapJack, Yandex_Maps#Street_view, CycloMedia and Bing_Maps#Streetside are enough for a list, which will no doubt grow over time.--Pontificalibus 11:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Pontificalibus. No deletion rationale has been presented, just a
WP:VAGUEWAVE to a policy that expressly supports this type of list. To Ajf773 for the nth time, we do not delete content if issues are fixable, even notwithstanding the fact that your "linkfarm" characterization is very inaccurate here. postdlf (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The linkfarm issue I have addressed myself. Ajf773 (talk) 07:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Pontificalibus' points.
Talk: Contribs) 10:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Perfect valid list article as it aids in navigation. Dream Focus 16:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 188.71.207.135 (talk) 19:01, 29 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 Miss North Dakota. czar 03:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Annette Olson

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

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

The coverage is all newsy short human interest pieces as the time of her state title win. This does not rise above out guidelines that Wikipedia is not news. Winning a state title is not enough to make someone default notable and there is nothing at all that suggests Olson is otherwise notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Article stops at 2007 pageant, but subject later married and is now named Annette Bohnsack, see [20].
talk) 04:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Miss North Dakota Per above .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:07, 31 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 Miss Argentina. Sandstein 08:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agustina Pivowarchuk

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

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

The article has two sources, which are both from instagram. In fact it looks to me like it may be two listings of the same source. Instagram is not at all a reliable source, so we have no realiable sources. We cannot have an article on a living person without reliable sources. I actually tried to Propose delete this article for these exact reasons, but that was reverted, so we are here. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 16:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 16:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 16:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. I have difficulty searching Spanish language sources, but there does appear to be some significant coverage in Spanish language media outlets. E.g., here. Cbl62 (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Argentina not enough for stand alone article but a valid search term.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:18, 31 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. Withdrawn by nominator
(non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Okoyo District

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

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

Not sure if this was ever a district of the Cuvette Department, can't find any reference on any of the associated pages which shows this. It's been an uncited stub for over 10 years. Also can't find anything online either. However, according to the most recent sources (as well as the WP article on the Department) doesn't show it as one of the 9 districts of the department. If it had been a district at one point in time, then it would be a simple fix to change the tense from is to was, but I can find no sourcing to indicate this. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - there is a district by this name, just not in this department. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:51, 28 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. Withdrawn by nom
(non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Nkayi District, Republic of the Congo

Nkayi District, Republic of the Congo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Not sure if this was ever a district of the Bouenza Department, can't find any reference on any of the associated pages which shows this. It's been an uncited stub for over 10 years. Also can't find anything online either. However, according to the most recent sources (as well as the WP article on the Department) doesn't show it as one of the 10 districts of the department. If it had been a district at one point in time, then it would be a simple fix to change the tense from is to was, but I can find no sourcing to indicate this. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by Nom - as per research found by SportingFlyer. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found: [22] and this (not a RS, possibly a Wikipedia mirror?) [23]. So this was likely a thing at some point. SportingFlyer T·C 22:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response - Yes, I saw that SportingFlyer - but if you look at the listing for Nkayi, it is listed as a "c" - for commune (one of the four in the list, as explained in the second paragraph), rather than a "d" for district. It was one of the reasons I began researching. There is also another one on this list, Mossendjo, which I fear suffers from the same issue (and I've also started an AfD on). And I agree, I'm not sure it's an RS, but their underlying sources are, I think. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969: I don't think these Congolese articles need to be deleted - assuming everything I've read is true, it looks like this was a district and they split off a commune and then Kayes District became the remainder of the district. Either we update these to be historical per [24] or move them to be the commune article. The problem really comes down to sourcing. SportingFlyer T·C 22:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, SportingFlyer - however, I can't seem to find anything in reliable sources to support this (see my note on the other AfD). If they truly were districts at one time, as I said in one of the AfD's, then the fix is simply changing the tense of a single word. But it's about the sourcing. Since the original articles were unsourced (which is why I hate unsourced articles), there's no way to track down what that editor was looking at over 10 years ago. However, barring turning up anything which supports their historical context, I think they should be deleted.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:14, 28 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. Withdrawn by nom
(non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Mossendjo District

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

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

Not sure if this was ever a district of the Niari Department, can't find any reference on any of the associated pages which shows this. Also can't find anything online either. However, according to the most recent sources (as well as the WP article on the Department) doesn't show it as one of the 14 districts of the department. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by Nom - based on the research by SportingFlyer.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this says it's obsolete, and "may be an outright mistake." [25] However, it's not an "outright mistake" per the source quoted here from 1950: [26] I'm really not sure what to recommend here, but I don't think it should be deleted per se. SportingFlyer T·C 23:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - in that second source, where does it talk about Mossendjo… I can't find it.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:NEXIST. SportingFlyer T·C 00:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@Onel5969: and per google translating [27], this should be renamed to Moutamba District, and Nkayi to Kayes District. SportingFlyer T·C 00:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent research,
Ouesso District article into Mokéko District. It's interesting that Louvakou District was never called Loubomo on Wikipedia. Want to hear something ironic, it was my reviewing the new article, Hinda District which started me looking into this. Now based on this new source you've uncovered, that article should be deleted, and the Pointe-Noire District
article simply renamed. What are your thoughts?
I'd focus on just what you've sent to AfD first. I don't think you're wrong, but both Ouesso District and Ouesso Commune bring up English-language search hits. I think Hinda is a better article than Pointe-Noire, to be honest - better sourcing. SportingFlyer T·C 04:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Giant Snowman 13:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jones and Beach station

Jones and Beach station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester Avenue station, a big batch of non-notable streetcar/light rail stops that have little to no infrastructure (stops at sidewalks, concrete slabs in the road, etc Cards84664 (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

15th Avenue and Taraval station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

19th Avenue and Randolph station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

30th Street and Dolores station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

46th Avenue and Ulloa station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

46th Avenue and Vicente station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Beach and Stockton station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Broad and Capitol station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Broad and Plymouth station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Carl and Cole station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Carl and Hillway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Carl and Stanyan station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Church and 16th Street station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Church and 18th Street station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Church and 22nd Street station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Church and 24th Street station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Church and 27th Street station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Church and 29th Street / Church and Day stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Church and 30th Street station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Church and Clipper station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Don Chee Way and Steuart station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Duboce and Church station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Duboce and Noe station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Irving and 4th Avenue station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Irving and 7th Avenue station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Jefferson and Powell station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jefferson and Taylor station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Judah and 12th Avenue station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Judah and 15th Avenue / Judah and 16th Avenue stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Judah and 19th Avenue station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Judah and 22nd Avenue / Judah and 23rd Avenue stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Judah and 25th Avenue station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Judah and 28th Avenue station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Judah and 31st Avenue station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Judah and 34th Avenue station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Judah and 40th Avenue station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Judah and 43rd Avenue station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Judah and 46th Avenue station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Judah and 9th Avenue station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Judah and Funston station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Judah and La Playa station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Judah and Sunset station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Junipero Serra and Ocean station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Market and 1st Street / Market and Battery stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Market and 3rd Street / Market and Kearny stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Market and 6th Street / Market and Taylor stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Market and 9th Street / Market and Larkin stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Market and Dolores / Market and Buchanan stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Market and Gough station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Market and Guerrero / Market and Laguna stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Market and Noe station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Market and Sanchez station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ocean and Aptos station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ocean and Dorado / Ocean and Jules stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ocean and Fairfield / Ocean and Victoria stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ocean and Lee station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ocean and Miramar station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ocean and San Leandro station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ocean and Westgate / Ocean and Cerritos stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Randolph and Arch station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Randolph and Bright station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Right Of Way/20th Street station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Right Of Way/21st Street station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Right Of Way/Eucalyptus station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Right Of Way/Liberty station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Right Of Way/Ocean station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

San Jose and Farallones station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

San Jose and Lakeview station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

San Jose and Mount Vernon station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

San Jose and Ocean station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

San Jose and Randall station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

San Jose and Santa Rosa station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

San Jose and Santa Ynez station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

San Jose/Glen Park station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

St. Francis Circle station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Taraval and 17th Avenue station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Taraval and 19th Avenue station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Taraval and 22nd Avenue / Taraval and 23rd Avenue stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Taraval and 26th Avenue station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Taraval and 30th Avenue station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Taraval and 32nd Avenue station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Taraval and 40th Avenue station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Taraval and 42nd Avenue station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Taraval and 44th Avenue station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Taraval and Sunset station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wawona and 46th Avenue station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

West Portal and 14th Avenue station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Speedy keep: this is a vastly different situation than Manchester - the stops have individual histories that are well-documented in primary and secondary sources. A number of these articles are easily start class or above by my efforts, unlike the Manchester articles that were the same two sentences on every article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These are not stations, they are stops. They have no infrastructure that would make them a "station" and a bus stop shelter does not make them notable should they be renamed. Yes, many of these are longer than a couple sentences, but the content at Ocean and Fairfield / Ocean and Victoria stations, for example, is about the history of the metro line, not the stop itself, and is largely duplicated across articles (as it is copied and pasted to Ocean and Aptos station, among others on the same line). I had trouble finding sources about specific stops themselves rather than the lines or segments thereof. Whatever little unique information there is could be merged into their respective lines like K Ingleside#Station and stop listing or a List of K Ingleside stops. Reywas92^Talk 04:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: I didn't know what to do with stops like Oakdale/Palou station. Is there a notability threshold for full platforms on a streetcar line? Cards84664 (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cards84664, these are all stops if they are in the median of a road. I don't think there is a difference between high and low level platforms. epicgenius (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all these are just stops on a streetcar line, they are not railway stations, and do not merit seperate articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If these are kept, they should be moved from Xxx station to Xxx stop to more accurately describe their actual status. Useddenim (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per the comments above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to respective line lists and keep all non-repeating citations intact. Cards84664 (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that there needs to be a broader discussion, because I have seen articles like these on RTD in Denver, among other places. Do we keep HBLR stops in medians? How about
Blue Line (Los Angeles Metro). I think a discussion should be made before the decision is made.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, merge or redirect depending on the notability of each place individually but all transit stops should be mentioned, at least, on a list of stops on the line and/or system and those without articles should reidrect to such a list. Deletion will bring no benefits over merging and may hinder the development of an article in future if notability increases. Thryduulf (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. It's difficult to consider 100 articles as a batch. Some are fairly well-sourced and could pass the GNG. Some apparently have infrastructure beyond a sign, and are discussed in reliable sources.
WP:BEFORE isn't required, but it's a good idea, and could have teased out some of these issues before a somewhat perfunctory mass nomination. It's disappointing that the nominator didn't engage anyone working in this space first, and I'm a bit puzzled as to why not. The precedents are tricky; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester Avenue station and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/36th and Market station pointed toward merging in large part because of the copy-paste "X is a stop" nature of the articles, which doesn't hold true for this batch (some are, some aren't). I think it might be a worthwhile endeavor to create a guideline for situations like these, because there are corner cases. I think everyone would agree that physical stations are notable, but what if a light rail line has both physical stations and stops? Ease of navigation might suggest the stops be broken out into their own articles (or not, anchors could handle that well enough). Mackensen (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or merge, per Mackensen. Useddenim (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. On the one hand, I agree with Mackensen that some of these stops are probably notable as standalone articles. Physical stations are definitely notable. However, I also think that the existing List of Muni Metro stations article can also be expanded. Some of these subjects are basically little more than a sign on the sidewalk, and their corresponding articles consist of "X is a stop", a coordinates template, a succession box, and an image. So it may be fair to merge these articles. However, there are also some light rail stops that may have significant notability on their own. On a side note, I noticed that some of the stops with high-level platforms, as well as T Third Street stops (which all have real platforms and waiting areas) are not included in this AFD. epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I agree with Useddenim in that these are more appropriately "stops" and not "stations". This naming format is already used elsewhere (e.g.
WP:USSTATION, but that is another discussion altogether. epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy close: this is a way-too-wide/overreach deletion request. As others have mentioned, it's feasible some of the proposed pages don't deserve articles, but it's inappropriate to be considering them en masse. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge a lot of Muni stops are simply bus signs with maybe a yellow line on the street to correspond, making an article for each one is almost akin to making an article for every bus stop that Muni or another agency has, I agree with a previous call to perhaps focus on expanding the list of Muni Metro stations instead. TITANOSAURUS 08:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 16:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 16:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or merge. per Epicgenius and Mackensen. AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, how can editors be expected to research over 80 articles at one time, lets say 5mins per article (at best a perfunctory search) makes over 3 1/2 hours (not counting coffee/chockie breaks:)), as for throwaway line "most are only stops/a sign and paint only" of a lot of the "deleters" this is irrevelant if there are
sources available, merge/redirect discussions can then be had on each article talkpage. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep There should be a set limit on to how many articles are bundled into an AfD. Like I've said in the past it makes our lives difficult if there are so many to check over if the nominators rationale is as vague as this one. Would recommend starting an RFC about it, as for UK stations/tram stops all are inherently notable (as to why/who suggested it however I haven't the foggiest) whereas for stations elsewhere in the world the majority are deleted with the obvious exceptions... Nightfury 08:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Way too many articles nominated to consider in bulk. I'd be open to reviewing individual articles, but a bulk nomination of 100+ articles with widely differing coverage is inappropriate. Smartyllama (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - And absurd amount of topics to investigate, flesh out and debate in one AfD. This AfD needs to die quickly. Oakshade (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - I've tried closing this AFD but so far it's not working! - Absurd nomination - No one can research 98 articles within 7 days. –Davey2010^Talk 13:26, 31 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. czar 03:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Klietmann

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

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

This really is not my area of expertise, but I struggle to see what he is notable for, and there seems to be no independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Appears to fail
WP:NACADEMIC. Edwardx (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete His main notable achievement seems to have been founding the Institute of Laboratory Medicine, which no longer exists. Likewise, 200 publications/conferences isn't particularly notable for a late-stage academic; speaking of which, he's a "Lecturer," not a professor. Although he has worked in rabies/infectious disease, he has not made any notable achievements in the area. This page overall reads like a resume to me. Furthermore, the original article seems to have been written in 2006 by someone related to Klietmann, as that person also wrote a page entitled "Maximilian klietmann" that was later deleted. Allopathie (talk) 07:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this resume. Trillfendi (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 16:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 16:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 16:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 16:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_January_28&oldid=1142614069"

[Commission1951-1] United States. Federal Communications Commission (1951). Federal Communications Commission Reports. V. 1-45, 1934/35-1962/64; 2d Ser., V. 1- July 17/Dec. 27, 1965-. Federal Communications Commission.