Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 6

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) 23:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Pos

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete -I attempted to explain why but it did not post. I removed the deletion because deleting the post due to the league not being fully professional is flawed because there is no distinction between professional and semi-professional leagues in Switzerland. Moreover, it is the second division in Switzerland and the player has turned out for the United States Under-23 National team.
  talk) 22:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 07:44, 7 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nanda Kumar Jayakumar

Nanda Kumar Jayakumar (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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. fails
  WP:GNG, lacking coverage on reliable sources. Shringhringshring^📞 15:57, 9 June 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 11:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale per request on my talk page: In my view, the "keep" side did demonstrate that the topic of long marriages was notable because of its coverage in sources; this was mostly not contested. However, the "keep" opinions did not adequately address, in my view, the "delete" side's arguments that the existing or proposed sources do not allow the creation of a verifiable, non-OR list of longest marriages. One might, therefore, based on this AfD, create a prose article about the topic of long marriages, but not a list of "longest" marriages. I'm not sure about a "list of long marriages"; this might require another AfD. Sandstein 15:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with the longest marriages

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

)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — JFG ^talk 09:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The nominator does not accurately describe the content/subject; there are a large number of sources cited that expressly claim that a particular marriage is a record or the longest, not merely "long". The nominator also asserts "most sources" are of a certain character, without saying what the remainder are (implying they are not of that character). postdlf (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The nomination fails to address the result of the previous nomination which was "keep". It is therefore disruptive per
  WP:BEFORE
  , are vexatious because they waste the time of editors on futile argument. In this case, I just prepared a detailed !vote but my browser crashed and now I've got to do it all again. The third time is the charm, eh? To make sure, let's raze the arguments of the nomination.

1. WP:CALC
   , that's not OR.
2. argument to avoid
   . The reality is surely that the list is highly discriminating as it has a tight focus on marriages of remarkable length.
3. The page has 145 sources and these include plenty of mainstream, respectable media such as the BBC and The Guardian. They generally indicate that the case is a record and so they are implicitly commenting on long marriages in a collective way. The sources include Guinness World Records and so the records are reasonably authoritative.
4. There are plenty of other sources out there such as entire books which collect the wisdom of long-married couples or analyze the demographics. Examples include: Secrets of Great Marriages; Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces; 30 Lessons for Loving; Marriage Statistics Analysis. So the topic passes
   WP:LISTN
   .

Andrew D. (talk) 08:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD happened in 2016; it is perfectly legitimate to conduct a new discussion after three years.

WP:Consensus can change. — JFG ^talk 13:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• The nomination presents no evidence that consensus has changed. The readership for the page is steady and substantial. The records of this sort are still being maintained by organisations like Guinness. Instead, the nomination seems to be a drive-by, made in about 2 minutes without any preliminary discussion or due diligence per
  WP:BEFORE. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The nomination presents no evidence that consensus has changed. This kind of comment is completely unacceptable, and I am frankly shocked that it has gone without comment for almost four days. The point of nominating is to see if consensus has changed, so of course there is no obligation to present evidence in advance that it already had. These kind of comments have been coming far too frequently from the above user. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a notable topic since news media around the world covers it. 145 references in the article show the topic gets plenty of coverage. Dream Focus 04:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Also found in Guinness World Records. The 2009 edition on page 107 the Oldest Bride is listed. Dream Focus 14:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand that any type of coverage, be it local, national or international of long-lasting marriages is useless in justifying this LIST article because none of these sources LIST groups of people in this manor. What about that can't you understand? Newshunter12 (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"...none of these sources LIST groups of people in this manor [sic]..." There's no such requirement that we source a list to other lists. postdlf (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article fails
  WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I nominated the list for deletion in 2016, and when it was clear there wasn't support to delete, I worked on improving the list instead. I still believe this is
  WP:NOT), and the other publications discuss all marriages, not just a handful of outliers. Pburka (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per the significant coverage in
  stand-alone list
  ." I will show below that "people with the longest marriages" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".
  1. Speirs, Doug (2017-11-25). "Love that lasts: Here's to couples with decades of wedded bliss". Winnipeg Free Press. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02.
  2. "Record mondial: Ei sunt cei mai bătrâni miri din lume! Momentul în care au spus "da" este foarte emoţionant" [World Record: They are the oldest brides in the world! The moment they said "yes" is very moving] (in Italian). Antena 1. 2015-06-23. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02.
  3. Bruce, David (2009-07-29). "75 years of marriage marked". Otago Daily Times. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02.
  4. "Britain's longest-married living couple". China Daily. 2006-06-02. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02.
  5. Biemer, John (2005-05-26). "With love, longevity, couples can reach 75th". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02.
  6. Skropanic, Jessica (2018-07-05). "'I met her and that was it': Redding couple celebrates 80 years of wedded bliss". Redding Record Searchlight. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02.
  7. Chavers, Penny (2019-02-16). "Breaking the Record for Longest Lasting Marriages". History Daily. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02.
  8. Curry, Susie (1997-08-20). "People: Marriage that has lasted for 75 years". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02.
  9. "Staying power". The Daily Telegraph. 2006-05-31. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02.

  Sources with quotes

  Speirs, Doug (2017-11-25). "Love that lasts: Here's to couples with decades of wedded bliss". Winnipeg Free Press. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02. The article notes: Seventy years is nothing to sneeze at, but the Queen and Philip are still a few years shy of the remarkable couples on today’s awe-inspiring list of Five of the Longest Marriages in History: 5) The happy couple: Bill and Bertie Nickerson Their time together: 80 years 4) The happy couple: John and Ann Betar Their time together: 85 years 3) The happy couple: Philipose and Sosamma Thomas Their time together: 88 years, two days 2) The happy couple: Herbert and Zelmyra Fisher Their time together: 86 years, 290 days 1) The happy couple: Karam and Kartari Chand Their time together: 90 years, 291 days "Record mondial: Ei sunt cei mai bătrâni miri din lume! Momentul în care au spus "da" este foarte emoţionant" [World Record: They are the oldest brides in the world! The moment they said "yes" is very moving] (in Italian). Antena 1. 2015-06-23. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02. From Google Translate: Have you ever wondered how long a marriage can last? Well, here's the top of the longest marriages in the world: 91 years and 12 days - the absolute world record was owned by Daniel and Susan Bakeman, a couple in the United States. 89 years and 187 days - Karam and Kartari Chand, from the UK. 88 years and 2 days - K. Philipose and Sosamma Thomas, India. 86 years and 290 days - Herbert and Zelmyra Fishe, from the United States. . Bruce, David (2009-07-29). "75 years of marriage marked". Otago Daily Times. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02. The article notes: Alfie and Win Gaze may have set a record - but they do not know for sure. Today, at Totara Lodge, the Oamaru couple will celebrate their 75th wedding anniversary. That could make them New Zealand's longest-married couple, just a year short of what is believed to have been New Zealand's longest marriage at 76 years. The article also notes: Long marriages around the world Other long marriages of note: - 86 years, 4 months Philipose and Sosamma Thomas, India, married 1919. - 81 years, 260 days Thomas and Elizabeth Morgan, South Wales, married 1710. - 85 years Liu Yung-Yang and Yang Wan, Taiwan, married 1917. - 84 years Herbert and Zelmyra Fisher, United States, married 1909. - 81 years Frank and Anita Milford, England, married 1928 - 76 years Mr and Mrs D. S. Prince, Wanganui, married 1883. "Britain's longest-married living couple". China Daily. 2006-06-02. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02. The article notes: Lifetime lovers Frank and Anita Milford have reportedly become Britain's longest-married living couple after celebrating their 78th wedding anniversary. ... With their relationship as strong as ever, the couple hope to beat the record for Britain's longest-ever marriage of 80 years, set by Percy and Florence Arrowsmith. Percy Arrowsmith died last year. ... The world's longest marriage on record is 86 years, set by two couples -- Sir Temulji Bhicaji Nariman and Lady Narima in India and were married in 1853 and US couple Lazarus Rowe and Molly Webber, who tied the knot in 1743. Biemer, John (2005-05-26). "With love, longevity, couples can reach 75th". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02. The article notes: Longest recorded marriages 79 years Living couple verified as of May 19, 2005 Percy George Arrowsmith (born, March 13, 1900) married Mary Dallimore (born Oct. 31, 1904) on June 1, 1925. Both are from U.K. 86 years Cousins Sir Temulji Bhicaji Nariman (born Sept. 3, 1848) and Lady Nariman, who were age 5 when their marriage took place, were married from 1853 to 1940. Both were from India. 86 years Lazarus Rowe and Molly Webber (born 1725), were recorded as marrying in 1743, at age 18. They were married until the death of Lazarus, 86 years later in June 1829. Both were from the U.S. The article also says that Joseph Dsida and Eva Brandt were married for nearly 75 years. The article also notes that Richard and Mary Pemberton were married for 75 years and that David and Molly Northwood were married for at least 75 years. Skropanic, Jessica (2018-07-05). "'I met her and that was it': Redding couple celebrates 80 years of wedded bliss". Redding Record Searchlight. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02. The article notes: Few could pull off an 80-year love affair, but Redding couple Del and Margaret Wood did it. ... The longest marriage on record, that of Herbert and Zelmyra Fisher, ended in 2011 after 86 years and 290 days, according to Rachel Gluck of Guinness World Records North America. However, the Yorkshire Post reported an 89th anniversary in 2014, that of Karam and Kartari Chand of Bradford, England. In 2016, John and Ann Betar of Connecticut celebrated their 83rd anniversary, and news outlets dubbed the 80-year marriage of Carlsbad couple Maury and Helen Goosenberg the longest marriage in California. Chavers, Penny (2019-02-16). "Breaking the Record for Longest Lasting Marriages". History Daily. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02. The article notes: Herbert and Zelmyra Fisher broke the Guinness Book of World Records in 2008 for maintaining their marriage for, at that time, 84 years which continued for another three years until his death. ... [Karam and Kartari Chand] This amazing couple has been married even longer than the Fishers who broke the Guinness Book of World Records in 2008. Mr. and Mrs. Chand were allegedly married for 90 years – almost a century. ... [John and Ann Betar] At the time of John’s passing in 2017, they had been married for 85 years. ... [Helen and Maurice Kaye] After being married for 84 years, Maurice passed away at the age of 106. Curry, Susie (1997-08-20). "People: Marriage that has lasted for 75 years". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02. The article notes: A retired steelworker and his wife - thought to be longest-married couple in the country - celebrated their 75th wedding anniversary yesterday. Ninety-nine-year-old Tom Blacker and his wife Rene, 97, of Thrybergh, near Rotherham, South Yorkshire, marked the occasion with a party for their family, which spans five generations. ... The couple (pictured above) are believed to be Britain's oldest married couple, and their celebration yesterday brings them within seven years of the record for a UK marriage held by James and Sarah Ann Burgess of Bermondsey, south London, who were married for 82 years. Mrs Burgess died in 1965 aged 100. The longest marriage on record lasted 86 years until 1940, between Sir Temulji Bhicaji Nariman and Lady Nariman of Bombay, India. They were married at the age of five. "Staying power". The Daily Telegraph. 2006-05-31. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02. The article notes: The longest recorded marriages by the Guinness Book of World Records are for two couples wed for 86 years. Cousins Sir Temulji Bhicaji Nariman and Lady Narima, who lived in India, were married from 1853 to 1940 after getting married aged five. American couple Lazarus Rowe and Molly Webber married in 1743, aged 18. The record for the longest marriage for a current living couple is John Rocchio and his wife, Emelia. They were married on Feb 10, 1923, at Providence, Rhode Island, USA, and had their 83rd anniversary on Feb 10, 2006. The article also discusses the Arrowsmiths who were married for 80 years.

  There is sufficient coverage in
  reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Thanks for the sources, although I wouldn't be surprised if some of them

copied their information from Wikipedia, especially the most recent ones. We are failing an authoritative or scientific source tracking the longest marriages. — JFG ^talk 07:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

FWIW, citogenesis is very real. I saw it in action recently: a mistranslation appeared on the website of the prime minister of Japan, and a large number of supposedly reliable sources, including the BBC, took that information at face value and printed it; I came onto the Wikipedia article on the relevant topic and clarified the relevant information, and suddenly no less than the White House was avoiding the mistranslation. And the BBC, which posted their own mistranslation of a different term in a related context, suddenly corrected itself within a couple of hours of me adding the correct translation to Wikipedia. Just pointing this out in advance since every time I've seen citogenesis raised in one of these discussions, people fire back with "No! These are reliable sources and there's no way they took their information from Wikipedia!" -- if the BBC are checking Wikipedia, then we cannot assume that the Otago Daily Times are not. Hijiri 88 (聖 やや) 07:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks. Maybe you'd like to add your anecdote to Circular reporting#Examples involving Wikipedia. Personally, I've seen some of the most egregious examples of citogenesis in the Whataboutism article. (But this is a whataboutist remark, undue here.) — JFG ^talk 07:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Odds are against any reliable sources ever covering it. I saved the proof privately in case I ever want to pull it up or brag about it. The ironic thing is that in that case the citogenesis was actually a good thing: the external "reliable sources" made an error, I corrected them, indirectly, on-wiki, and they later corrected themselves without comment, with the end result being that the incorrect information was expunged. Tragically, the same is not true for Japanese English-language newspapers such as The Japan Times, which will always prioritize providing "natural English prose" to their target readership -- Japanese students of English -- over factual accuracy: they have repeated the same error dozens of times over, know it is in error, and continue to repeat it whenever the subject comes up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, at roughly the same time as I wrote the above the International Policy Digest published this article that clearly consulted Wikipedia: Japan’s oldest poetry anthology and variants thereof have been ubiquitous for months now (actually it was something of a pet topic of mine long before it became a "cool" topic[3][4][5]), so their saying one of Japan’s oldest collections of poetry really makes it look like they checked Wikipedia, and they were right to do so, since relying on sources like [manhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48029890 the BBC] would have resulted in them making a similar error. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep subject is GNG - covered by major news outlets and regularly reported.
  ☎) 23:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete The "reliable sources" for these entries appear to contradict each other left, right, and center. Yeah, we can presume that any source that doesn't explicitly say "the world's longest" (as opposed to, say, "our country or city's longest") doesn't actually mean that, but what exactly are we supposed to do in such circumstances? A spot-check indicated that such problematic cases account for the vast majority of entries in the list. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another daft list that will be a pain to maintain.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there is indeed a pretty large
  original research issue inherent in this. It's a fascinating subject, to be sure, but per the nominator and Hijiri88 the sources present here basically require us to make all kinds of inferences about what "the longest marriage" is the longest in the world or a given area. The secondary sources aren't there to collate all this, so it's not feasible for a list. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete in the absence of any authoritative sources, this is mostly OR/SYNTH and indeed as Slatersteven says, a "daft list that will be a pain to maintain". --Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this appears to fail
  WP:SYNTH pretty clearly. SportingFlyer T·C 03:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Rename the page to address original research concern:

  At

  OR: It isn't, as long as the items in the list are referenced to sources calling the deaths unusual. If there are items in the list where this is not the case, they should be fixed if possible and removed if not. But, improper items on the list is not a good argument for the deletion of the article as a whole. Calling the article "crap", and or stating that there isn't a good enough inclusion criteria yet are also terrible reasons for deletion. The article can always be improved, (this isn't a BLP1E type situation here). And the inclusion criteria can and should be drafted by a community discussion on it, not by deleting the article. If editors feel that this still hasn't been hammered out properly, an RFC should be started and the results of that RFC should be drafted into a firm policy on the matter.

  I quote this here to emphasize that 1) the list is not subjective original research and 2) the inclusion criteria can be discussed on the talk page if editors disagree with the current inclusion criteria.

  Just as "list of unusual deaths" is not original research "as long as the items in the list are referenced to sources calling the deaths unusual", so is "list of people will long marriages" not original research "as long as the items in the list are referenced to sources calling the marriages long".

  Cunard (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

What defines a long marriage?Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant Delete - The topic is encyclopedic, and the pageview stats show that there's interest in the page, but, absent any definitive source saying "x has the longest marriage", I don't think the list should be kept. Rename per Cunard. His rationale satisfies my concerns about this list being presented as definitive. There are plenty of sources on this subject out there, and a rename brings the list in line with the sources. schetm (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- as shown above, this list suffers from sourcing concerns as well as problems with original research and synthesis. Reyk _YO! 05:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: In reply to Slatersteven's question about "What defines a long marriage?": For this list, "a long marriage" is defined as "a marriage that a reliable source has called a long marriage". This is the same definition as that for list of unusual deaths, where "an unusual death" is defined as "a death that a reliable source has called unusual". This way, Wikipedia editors will not need to engage in original research in trying to come up with their own definitions for when a marriage is "a long marriage" or when a death is "an unusual death".

  The lead of List of unusual deaths and the proposed lead of List of people with long marriages

  The lead of List of unusual deaths says: This is a list of unusual deaths. This list includes only unique or extremely rare circumstances of death recorded throughout history, noted as being unusual by multiple sources. Oxford Dictionaries defines the word unusual as "not habitually or commonly occurring or done" and "remarkable or interesting because different from or better than others". The lead contains a hidden comment that says "Deaths that are unusual but that are not associated with reliable sources that say the death is unusual will be removed." We can model the lead of List of people with long marriages after the lead of List of unusual deaths. The lead of List of people with long marriages can say: This is a list of people with long marriages. This list includes only people who have been married for a significant period of time, as noted by reliable sources. Oxford Dictionaries defines the word long as "lasting or taking a great amount of time". The lead could contain a hidden comment that says "Marriages that are long but that are not associated with reliable sources that say the marriage is long will be removed."

  Since each entry in the list would need to be called "a long marriage" by a reliable source, there is no original research.

  Since each entry in the list would stand on its own, there is no synthesis.

  In reply to Schetm: Thank you for reconsidering your "delete" position and explaining why a rename to "list of people with long marriages" resolves your "concerns about this list being presented as definitive" when it is called "list of people with the longest marriages".

  Cunard (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that List of unusual deaths requires that the death be noted as unusual by multiple sources. If this list is kept, its inclusion criteria should be similarly tightened. Pburka (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No arguments have been presented for why each entry in list of people with long marriages should be sourced to multiple sources instead of at least one source, so I will reserve judgment on whether that should be required. Only a handful of entries on this list are not sourced to more than one source.

Cunard (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as it is pretty obviously a salient/often-covered topic of apparently great interest to the public; sources abound. Renaming to slightly change focus ("List of longest marriages"?; "Celebrated long marriages"?) is possible but not for AFD. Complaints like "as shown above, this list suffers from sourcing concerns as well as problems with original research and synthesis" are just matters to be addressed by normal editting, if they have not been already fully addressed by Cunard's informed replies. --Doncram (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE - Smells like
  WP:LISTCRUFT
  . This is trivia, pure and simple. Creating list pages when there isn't a related article should not be done lightly. Someone commented that the lack of maintainability isn't an valid argument but a list with a volatile membership requiring disproportionate effort to keep up to date is cruft. That there is no related article reinforces the non-encyclopedic nature of the list.

There is no mechanism to remove or manage entries from the list as newspapers will not update such articles with the report of a breakup or passing. Verifiability is also reduced as there is zero consistency in reporting this in the first place.

The list fails

WP:LISTV#INC

as due to vague inclusion criteria. Indeed, the proposals for criteria are being deliberately phrased so as to avoid verifiability (and attempt escape from deletion).

This is

WP:INDISCRIMINATE

as there is no meaningful context. Well, no context at all actually. This is amplified (and also made obvious) by the lack of meaningful inclusion criteria.

Instead, add a section on the marriage page (similar to 'Long-lived individuals' on 'Longevity') and include the most significant couples. ogenstein (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion criteria, as stated in the article, are "marriages which have been reported as setting records for length." There's no need for removal in the manner in which you describe, as the marriage has already reached a certain length. schetm (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough although eventually the list will get too long. But that does not address any of the other concerns, and the concept of 'record' remains false. ogenstein (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding "Creating list pages when there isn't a related article should not be done lightly", I agree. List articles should be created only when they pass
  Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists) notes, "Long stand-alone list articles are split into subsequent pages (alphabetically, numerically, or subtopically) to adhere to the Wikipedia guideline on article size." The list currently has 52 entries. If and when the list becomes too long, it can be split into multiple pages.

  Cunard (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Separately, the reason this is not a standard article is because it is obviously insuffient to be one. None of the entries are notable and so the list also fails

WP:CSC which stipulates that when the subject is non-notable living people, a stand-alone list is inappropriate. I'll repeat my earlier suggestion — put the most interesting entries on the Marriage page in their own section. ogenstein (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I could see some objections being raised on the marriage talk page for this solution. If consensus arrives for a merge of the sort you propose, I think further discussion at Talk:Marriage should take place before it is implemented. schetm (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would this qualify as 'controversial'? It is not on the list of controversial topics and it does not broach any of the marriage-related items on that list (and shouldn't for decades). But as it doesn't hurt to raise it there (I hope), I have raised the question on that talk page. ogenstein (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "controversial issues" tag on Talk:Marriage, which is why a discussion should take place there before a merge. Thank you for starting the discussion. schetm (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was simple enough to do. I just wanted to first look into any procedural docs (which also suggest beginning a discussion there) as well as review the controversial issues list. So, good idea. ogenstein (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment When my paternal grandparents celebrated their golden wedding anniversary, two different and well-regarded newspapers had an article of several paragraphs (including a photo) of them, commenting on their "long marriage". Is that the kind of "long marriages" that we want to make a list about? --Randykitty (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the existing inclusion guideline from this article, "marriages which have been reported as setting records for length" are to be included. So, did the newspapers in question say that your grandparents had the longest marriage on record? If so, then send me some links, and I'll add them to the list! If not, then, no, that is not the type of marriage we want to make a list about. schetm (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the proposed criteria above: "A marriage is included on the list if a reliable source has called it a long marriage." --Randykitty (talk) 11:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote above, "The inclusion criteria of the list would be 'people who reliable sources say had a long marriage'. To further refine the list's selection criteria, the list could be restricted to people married for at least 80 years. Currently, every single entry on that list meets this more restrictive inclusion criteria: 'people married for at least 80 years who reliable sources say had a long marriage'."

A golden wedding anniversary marks 50 years of marriage. Whether your paternal grandparents are included on the list depends on which inclusion criteria there is a consensus for. If there is a consensus for the less restrictive inclusion criteria, your grandparents would be included. If there is a consensus for the more restrictive inclusion criteria, your grandparents would not be included.

Cunard (talk) 04:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria should not be so loose as to entertain the possibility of golden wedding anniversaries being included. schetm (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Schetm: marriages which have been reported as setting records for length Reported by whom, though? Unreliable sources that each claim the longest marriage in their town or village is the longest in the world or in the history of the world? A bunch of these sources appear to contradict each other, and we can probably assume that very few marriages last more than 80 years and virtually none more than 90 years, so virtually all marriages in this relatively narrow range. Both the Chand and Thomas marriages are fairly well sourced and might merit articles by themselves, but the majority of marriages of lengths within this range are actually not that far off the top spot in terms of number of years, relatively speaking, and there are probably an abundance that also fall within this range but haven't been reported as such because of poor record keeping, or poor reporting, or the persons themselves being private individuals and not wanting the attention (we have to remember that all of these people are extremely old, and when 80-year-old monarchs are abdicating because their advanced age impede their ability to handle their official duties, we can't assume that 100-year-old regular joes who have been regular joes their whole lives are all that happy to be dealing with press). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reported by reliable sources, of course. That's standard operating procedure on enwiki. The current mood at WP:Longevity stands against biographies of old people on

WP:NOPAGE grounds, and I have a feeling that the Chand and Thomas marriages would get similar AfD noms, except there would be no merge target as this list would be deleted. The question for me is whether it would be better to have a broader stand-alone list or a few scattered biographies with little content save the birth and death dates of the couples and when they were married. I think that, in this case, the list as it stands is better able to serve the reader. schetm (talk) 18:22, 13 June 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.

A small amendment per a request on my talk page: Given that many of the concerns here are about the reliability of medical information and whether "armchair diagnoses" by people who have not personally examined Trump are actually reliable, as well as more general gossip/unencyclopedicity concerns, the editors who carry out the merger should probably consider a very selective merge that only includes the good material supported by top-notch sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Health of Donald Trump

Health of Donald Trump (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 unnecessary fork, and it's not clear why relevant well-sourced content cannot be included on the main article for the person. Having said that, a large amount of the article appears to be based on speculation, with an afterthought in the last section from the Alzheimer's Society and the American Psychiatric Association explicitly saying that it's unethical for practitioners to conduct armchair diagnosis and provide such information using their professional credentials to the public in any form. There's definitely somewhere in here where we bump up against MEDRS and BLP. The article does not seem to resoundingly meet either, and it's not clear that there would be very much left if all the content not meeting these standards were removed. GMG^talk 20:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge appropriate material back into
  WP:COATRACK seems to apply here. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 20:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Merge - only the confirmed medical info ^{19:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)} - delete the rest as UNDUE & noncompliant with BLP & NPOV
  HIPAA which protects the privacy and security of one's health information. ^{20:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)}[reply
  ]
  • @Atsme:, can you point to an example of a piece of information in this article that would be protected under HIPAA (and not waived as a prior public disclosure)? bd2412 T 21:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm no expert, bd2412, and I won't deny that at times I may be overly cautious about compliance with our core content policies, but when medical professionals are providing a medical evaluation of a patient they've never examined, it's downright unethical, and when a medical doctor breaches his patient's privacy, I'm of the mind that it's a vio of HIPAA, which tends to make it a bit more problematic for us to include, especially if the purpose is to denigrate, despite verifiable evidence to the contrary. Hope that answers your question. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, don't we have a responsibility to inform the public of the breach? Otherwise, it makes it seem fine. bd2412 T 22:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • • My 1st thought is WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, 2nd thought is Harold Bornstein, which would be the proper article for that material. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that we can describe it that way only if a source actually says that, but not based on editor interpretation. It also seems to me that whatever news source reported the information is the one that is ethically responsible for publicizing a HIPAA breach, unless we cite a direct communication from the MD. But we still have a BLP-based obligation not to repeat it here if there are any such issues. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - too much of a coatrack related to criticisms of Trump's mental state as a standalone article (it would be different if we were talking something akin to a clear physical problem lke FDR's polio.) I am tempted to say that no redirect should b left behind, but that makes for a complicated history merge. --Masem (t) 21:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - what's salvageable. Not the mental stuff unless he starts wearing a tinfoil hat. O3000 (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- 90% of this article is just pure speculation and allegations made by people who have never personally examined him. The actual factual information about his examinations are too trivial for inclusion. Who really cares if he gained 4 pounds in a year?--
  Rusf10 (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete- per user::Rusf10 comment, almost nothing worth merging to a BLP. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - It's true that many of the comments are speculation by people who have never examined him, but the sheer amount of speculation is notable. The article as it stands is overly-detailed and disproportionate but there is plenty of material worth saving and moving to Donald Trump Hugsyrup (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- speculative information and possible libel in the mental health section. Most of the infomation should not be merged due to libel reasons as well as speculation per
  WP:LIBEL Abote2 (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Abote2 (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Abote2 (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The topic is notable, so this is really just a judgment call over whether a separate article is warranted, as we all know it is going to fill with every random op-ed and comment about Trump being a declining mental midget. I agree with
  Rusf10 that there is a dearth of concrete public information out there. It is probably better covering what is legitimate within another Trump article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

WP:PROPORTION all fit, particularly the latter, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. I'm of the mind that the handling of the highly publicized health issues that plagued Hillary Clinton sets a good standard for us to follow. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge and go back to status quo - Given the
  talk) 19:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge or Delete. The fact that there has been such speculation may be more noteworthy than is the content of that speculation, but Wikipedia should not be repeating medical allegations that have not been medically substantiated. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC) revised --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Information that is actually confirmed should go in his main article. This is an inappropriate
  WP:BLP and libel concerns. funplussmart (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete The entirety of this article is either pointless trivia or baseless speculation in violation of professional standards (as well as wikipedia policies). Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The
  WP:OVERSIGHT. For this reason I think merging with libellous editing history available for copy/reproduction is not an appropriate option, regardless of one’s opinion of Trump.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Expand original - Libel does not apply where there is evidence to support the claim, and top mental health experts have now followed the procedure to give their analysis the status of fact. This analysis needs serious consideration, and in it they explain why the Goldwater rule does not apply and why a personal examination is not necessary. Also, the proposal for deletion was made precisely when the topic started heating up.--Dallbat (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I can list sources by many mental health experts who state Donald Trump does not have a mental health or personality disorder and others who say he has ADHD rather than a personality disorder, blah blah. Sources do not agree, but none of these experts have formally assessed him which includes interviewing family members about his childhood etc. It is all speculation and libellous. Finally, you cannot vote twice, especially with differing votes.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  This kind of confusion is exactly why an expanded discussion is necessary. People are still talking about diagnosis, no matter how many times it is emphasized that diagnosis has nothing to do with dangerousness and ability to discharge the duties of office--which has always been a consensus (in fact, mental health professionals debate ethics because the medical part is not debatable; otherwise, why debate what you can and cannot talk about if there is nothing to talk about?).--Dallbat (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your point of view. You made two votes, please pick which one you are going with and strike the one you do not wish to keep, please. You cannot have two bolded votes.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dallbat: - please decide which vote you would like to make. starship.paint (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for pointing this out. I changed my vote to keeping the article but expanding it to include the complexity of the discussion, which I think is particularly important, not less, if psychiatrists' voice was significant enough for a professional organization to come out and exceptionally silence them in an extraordinary move.--Dallbat (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dallbat: - you still voted twice. You can strike your earlier comment by inserting <s>Your comment</s> at your above comment. starship.paint (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I suggest you move, from your reply to me, the “expand original” bolded vote to join it with your above/earlier bolded ‘keep’ vote and leave the rest of your message which was a reply to me here.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I see what you mean by voting twice. I deleted my earlier one, for since learning more, I consider this article all the more vital.--Dallbat (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Please do not cast

  Assume good faith on the part of other editors.--v/r - TP 00:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Understood! And apologies.--Dallbat (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have no particular objection to merging this to Donald Trump, but we should take care to avoid losing reliably sourced content. Therefore, if merged, any merger should include all material that is reported in sources that Wikipedia generally considers reliable. If there are concerns that these sources are making defamatory claims, then the solution is to carefully state that this is the claim arising from the source, and not an assertion of fact on Wikipedia's part. We should also take care preserve the edit history of the resulting redirect; we can revdel any specific content in the edit history that is not properly attributed to a reliable source. bd2412 T 17:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless we have an oversight admin who is going to carefully read almost 200 diffs/edits/versions of the page to decide what content is libellous or otherwise violates our policies then this suggestion won’t fly. Also, who is to say the admin won’t have a political bias one way or the other. No, you rev delete a small number of diffs, not an article which is thoroughly problematic by countless edits and diff versions. Too much work that likely will not get done. If someone sees content that is salvageable then now is the time to copy it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you point to any specific edits introducing content that is not properly designated as having come from a specific reliable source? Having practiced intellectual property law for several years - including the defense of defamation cases - no violation occurs where a report by a third-party news organization is properly attributed to them. Otherwise, we would never be able to convey any information at all that any party could consider "negative". bd2412 T 21:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I am a volunteer, I am not going to dissect 200 diffs just to reply to you, unless you pay me — which is my point above that it is too much work to individually rev delete many many edits. The article content is what we are discussing, no need for diffs. Currently our article strongly suggests Donald Trump has dementia combined with a narcissistic-psychopathic personality disorder without any formal assessment being carried out. The physicians making these armchair diagnoses are violating professional ethics. He must have a funny type of dementia since there has been no deterioration towards dementia, but who cares just so long as it is reliably sourced, it is just Wikipedia after all, eh... The information is unreliable regardless of who published it, so no source can be considered reliable if giving unreliable information. You may have an understanding of law but not psychiatric diagnostic standards it seems since you are defending what you are defending.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  200 edits is actually not that much - I've gone through edit histories of articles with several times as many. I'm sure it will be possible to find an admin willing to do this. With respect to specific assertions in the article, as written it says, for example, " Vanity Fair reported the opinion of a number of mental health experts...", "Jeanne Suk Gerson wrote in The New Yorker...", "Bill Moyers interviewed psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton and said...", "Carlos Lozada, writing for The Washington Post, considered these conclusions..." The reader can determine the reliability of the information based on the source identified, and if there is a lack of clarity with respect to the assignment of these claims, we can clarify the relationship. Teach the controversy. bd2412 T 21:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  No they can not determine whether the diagnoses are reliable because Trump has not been formally assessed for these disorders, again you clearly have a very poor grasp of clinical ethics and diagnostic and professional psychiatric standards. Many reliable sources cite Goldwater rule to say these diagnoses should not be being applied to Trump, just google it. It is too controversial, nobody can agree anything about Trump so an admin would only get accused of being too lenient or too harsh in their Rev deletes, best delete the article. I have nothing more to add.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Umm...I think most people probably get that we hold ourselves to a standard that is higher than the law. But...I'm not sure the "usual standard" of sourcing necessarily applies when we're dealing with medical information about a living person. That's really double trouble as far as sourcing goes, especially when long standing professional organizations are issuing public statements saying that such statements are unethical. GMG^talk 22:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:BLP prohibits contentious claims unless they are reported in reliable sources; these reliable sources are themselves not legally bound by the Goldwater rule. It may be worth discussing whether we should be. Merging some portion of this article into Donald Trump will not by itself answer those questions of policy, since, for example, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump continues to exist as an article despite being entirely about a source of armchair speculation on Trump's mental health. I think that if there are problems with the credibility of, for example, a psychiatrist highlighted by a reliable source, then the better solution is to provide the information that calls this credibility into question. However, to the extent that material from this article is merged into the parent article, I don't see a problem with keeping the edit history under the redirect for attribution. The existence of such a thicket is unlikely to influence anyone's perceptions. bd2412 T 23:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Well, I'm still stuck on mobile, so I'm afraid I can't get into the depths of nuance. But the notability of a book doesn't necessarily pertain at all to the reliability of the information in said book. GMG^talk 01:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Suppose we approach this question from the opposite direction. If, hypothetically, the existing article were blown up and a new article rewritten from scratch, is there an article that can be written on the health of Donald Trump, physical and otherwise? I think the fact that the topic has been addressed by so many news outlets that we consider to be reliable sources (including sources from all across the political spectrum, though these are not necessarily reflected in the current version) indicates that this is a notable topic, and that an appropriate article could be put together. I'm thinking about this in the long term - long after Trump and the rest of the politicians are dead, there will be interest in what the state of his health was during his presidency (for exactly the same reasons that we now have

  Health of Hillary Clinton). bd2412 T 01:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  bd2412, what you stated above is basically the reason for this AfD - the health sections for Reagan and Clinton were handled properly - they actual had serious health issues and were examined and diagnosed by medical professionals who provided reports that were published in RS, which is quite unlike what this article represents regarding the armchair doctors/psychoanalysts/psychiatrists who diagnosed Trump in violation of their professional code of ethics. If any of their opinions about Trump's mental health is included, then their misconduct should be as well, and a good RS to cite is this NPR article. If consensus says merge, a summary of the results of Trump's actual medical exams can be included in a section in the relevant Trump articles (if they aren't already). If consensus says to merge, then editors will determine what does and doesn't belong in the article via local consensus or an RfC on the article TP. If consensus says delete, discussion is over. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I have absolutely no objection to the inclusion of balancing information. I think that the broader and more complete the picture we provide, the better we serve the reader. I think this is particularly true where there are well-reported matters of public controversy. We can say that we're not going to talk about the controversy at all, as if it doesn't exist, or we can say that we're going to explain what exactly the controversy is. bd2412 T 04:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The more I read the discussions here, the more I am convinced now that this article is more important than any of the others, since there has never been a presidency that has been so controversial, health-wise, from the very start. In fact, more so even than the health of Ronald Reagan or Hillary Clinton: what other president has had dozens of the nation's most famous mental health professionals come forth warning against his "dangerous mental instability," a professional organization changing its ethical rules (most people do not know they instituted a new gag rule with this presidency), and mental health experts still insisting that it is their duty to speak out? This seems historic to me.--Dallbat (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG delete this disarmingly irrelevant trivia. The standards of BLP have been under absolute siege lately. Ya hate to see it. Trillfendi (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you meant "alarmingly". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I said what I said, but both apply. Trillfendi (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, like stunningly unimportant? Or more like shockingly non-notable? Or perhaps amazingly inconsequential? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Trillfendi has a good grasp of English it seems, I had to google that word: disarmingly...--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Alarmingly irrelevant" would make sense but it is not clear to me what "disarmingly irrelevant" would mean. Bus stop (talk) 07:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I’m saying is, from afar, like a Monet, one would likely look at this article and say, "wow, this is insightful." But when you actually see it for what it is, it’s Daily Mail-calibre horseshit dreck. The reader has been deceived! Politicians aren’t required to give their physicals. It’s purely trivial. If he did have Dick Cheney (God, how is that guy even still kicking...) problems then I would see something to actually write about. Other than that this "Trump is an obese, senile narcissist who can’t form coherent sentences" Twitter-grade psychobabble is antithetical to what this encyclopedia is supposed to be used for. Trillfendi (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Trump's main biography has enough information about the president's medical exams. A few words about speculation on his mental health would be due, because it has been a political tension point and received a lot of coverage, but definitely no more than a couple lines. This article is too far out. — JFG ^talk 07:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GNG. This is a notable subject, and the sourcing is good. Libel is not an issue here when we use published sources per
  WP:PUBLICFIGURE. For those interested in how libel laws work in these internet days, Barrett v. Rosenthal
  changed everything by providing immunity from liability for the republication (not original publication) of defamatory content on the internet. Only the original publisher can be held liable.

In short, our standard is BLP's

talk) 20:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Certainly Trump's health has been covered more than any other president's, but we have to keep this in perspective with the fact that Trump's <anything> has been covered more than any other president's. I believe that we are facing a case where

WP:PAGEDECIDE leans towards inclusion of the health topic in the main biography. A lot of it is intimately linked to his age (covered in the biography), his way of speaking (covered in the biography) and political battles (covered in the biography). Ergo, the main biography alone provides the necessary context for readers to evaluate what has been said about Trump's physical and mental health. — JFG ^talk 21:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Certainly Trump's health has been covered more than any other president's Really? More than Wilson stroking out so badly his wife became acting president? More than FDR being an actual cripple?

I find that hard to believe. GMG^talk 16:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

In fairness, Wilson and FDR were two-term (or more) presidents. Trump's health has been covered more than any recent president, possibly more than Reagan's. bd2412 T 17:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right; I did mean "any recent president". Never heard about Wilson's wife before today; thanks! — JFG ^talk 07:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Article is largely just trivia and doesn't warrant being included in an encyclopedia due to quality concerns. 71.215.83.8 (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC) — 71.215.83.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Merge the content that is cited to physicians that have actually treated him to Donald Trump and delete the rest.--v/r - TP 23:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would find such a limitation slightly problematic, given the history of Trump's physicians apparently falsifying medical information in his favor. bd2412 T 01:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • A perfect example of why this article is pointless and should be deleted. The only people qualified to discuss the subject routinely lie about it. In other words, there's no such thing as a reliable source on this topic. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @BD2412: I find it more problematic that we'd keep conjecture from people who have never had access to the man to properly diagnose him in an article about a living person. If you want to keep the sourced material, it should be in an article about the event. Not from a Trump health perspective, but from an event perspective similar to Birtherism.--v/r - TP 23:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Something along the lines of Trump derangement syndrome? bd2412 T 23:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, that article appears to be about something else. I'd make it about the recent willingness of psychologists to ignore the goldwater rule. Has that happened to this widespread level ever before?--v/r - TP 23:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, never before. The American Psychiatric Association never worked so hard in a public relations campaign, either, to silence mental health professionals. Never were there hundreds and thousands of mental health professionals organizing against this silencing. A book of just 27 of them became an instant bestseller--this is historic. It seems to me we need an article covering all this and the reasons why "the Goldwater rule," which was considered obsolete the moment it entered the books, which has been scientifically refuted several times (mostly recently, the Lilienfeld article from 2018), and which even the APA was discussing eliminating before the Trump campaign, suddenly became the law of the land. Numerous APA members resigned from the organization for its "trumping up" the rule against trends of science and practice, which has changed entirely to diagnosis based on observation (whereas in Goldwater's time it was based on introspection), while remote diagnosis has become routine with the prevalence of telepsychiatry. The APA leadership itself admitted that it did so not to lose federal funding. While the APA refused to do a poll, an informal poll by the American College of Psychiatrists showed that an overwhelming majority of psychiatrists believed the rule needed to be changed. Some have pointed out that this ONE rule of ONE private association among many of ONE type of mental health profession among many (psychiatry), violates the Geneva Declaration of the World Psychiatric Association, which obligates speaking up against dangerous regimes. All this ought to raise questions and mandate in-depth reflection.--Dallbat (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I see nothing wrong with having this article, it's part of the Series of Donald Trump Aritcles, If we delete this article it's basically saying that we should delete all Donald Trump articles and only keep the Donald Trump article. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article is unlikely to be compliant with
  WP:NPOV. It is inevitably an attack on Trump. Bus stop (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Notable topic with good sourcing. Much better than the main article on Trump. Dimadick (talk) 10:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a highly notable topic, and a well written and well sourced article that is an established part of the Donald Trump article suite.

The health and personality of Donald Trump is probably the most widely covered issue related to Trump in

reliable sources. There is an enormous body of expert commentary the world over, including entire books (The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President

). Clearly countless reliable sources consider this topic to be very important for understanding Trump as a politician. Trump himself has commented on his health on many occasions. The topic clearly meets GNG.

The opinion of a private association in the US on whether it is "ethical" for individual psychiatrists in that country to comment on Trump's mental health is simply not relevant for our discussion of the notability of this topic. The problem with this fallacious "argument" is that

We have numerous other articles that cover the health and personality of prominent politicians – whether dead (

Kim Jong-un#Personality

) – and I've only seen an attempt to argue that we "can't" cover it in the articles related to Donald Trump. No need to give Trump special treatment and ignore our usual policies just for the articles on him.

Also note that the main Donald Trump article is written in Wikipedia:Summary style, so most of the coverage of this topic would belong in a separate article, with only a short summary in the main article. --Tataral (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your analysis is that is ignores two basic core values of Wikipedia. This article isn't about "Health of Donald Trump" despite the title. It's a coatrack. What is really is, is about "

WP:COATRACK are the primary issues here and BLP is a core policy. We don't ignore it just because the rest of the world has decided to do away with ethics.--v/r - TP 02:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

No, we don't have to base our articles on him on "his doctors". Wikipedia articles are based on

reliable sources. The "who have not examined the subject" part is not something that is relevant for Wikipedia and our content policies. And one private association in one country, the US, doesn't get to dictate what is "ethics". A number of other experts have made strong arguments for why the ethical thing to do is to comment on his mental health. The "not examined the subject" crowd is clearly in the minority among the experts who have commented on this issue in reliable sources; outside the US this fallacious argument is not even taken seriously and mostly ignored. --Tataral (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

If they haven't examined him, then they are not a reliable source. If you think otherwise, then the next time you get sick, rather than going to see your doctor, ask him to diagnose you over the phone.--

Rusf10 (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

That is not

Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. --Tataral (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

We have an obligation to use editorial judgement here per BLP. Just because there is an RS doesn't mean it should be covered. There are multiple policies at play and we need to remember that we're not a gossip site.--v/r - TP 03:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)−[reply]

Reliable sources have clearly demonstrated that countless experts and commentators consider this a very serious issue worthy of serious discussion, and not "gossip". This well developed and long-established article meticulously complies with BLP and other policies. --Tataral (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gossip according to Google: "casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true."

WP:GOSSIP: "Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." Both of these clearly apply to what is happening here. Experts or not, none of them have examined him. That they are experts doesn't matter because they haven't had access to his medical records or treated him. They are gossiping. And we don't cover that.--v/r - TP 23:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Strictly speaking, at least some of them are not claiming to have heard rumors through the grapevine. They are observing public patterns of behavior, just as a primatologist might observe the behavior of a group of monkeys and draw conclusions about their social structure. bd2412 T 00:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) It's not "gossip", but expert opinions based on verifiable, public information, and reported by

reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@

appeal to authority logical fallacy.--v/r - TP 01:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

So does psychopathography of Adolf Hitler need to be deleted in your opinion? Is it "gossip"? The experts cited didn't examine him, in fact they had far less access to him, and far less material to build their conclusions on, than the experts who have assessed Trump have. --Tataral (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you want to delete that article, you march right over there and do it. I'm at this AFD talking about the merits of this article.--v/r - TP 01:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm pretty sure a primatologist, given many hours of a footage of a monkey boisterously marking its territory and otherwise engaging in behavior typical of monkeys with a certain state of mind, could draw valid conclusions about its state of mind. For example, our article on the

killing of Harambe states, with reference to a citation, that "Primatologist Jane Goodall said that according to the video it seemed Harambe was trying to protect the child". bd2412 T 01:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I only entertained the primatologist argument briefly but if you want to continue down that track, I'm going to ask if you consider psychologist to be equal in discipline to primatology.--v/r - TP 01:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is important, I think, to distinguish psychologists from psychiatrists, who will have a medical degree in addition to their training in psychological analysis. At least two of the mental health professionals named in the article are specified in the sources to be psychiatrists. Of course, these people will have been required to receive substantially more training and education than a primatologist (Dian Fossey, for example, only had a bachelors degree in occupational therapy before becoming a renowned primatologist). Mental health professionals will generally have the added advantages of being able to observe not only body language, but the actual words people say, from which to form opinions of the mental state of the subject. bd2412 T 02:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought we were coming to an agreement above, did you not like that suggestion? The consensus seems to be leaning towards delete or selective merging without the conjecture/gossip. I think if you wanted to save a lot of the material, an article called something similar to non-contact diagnosis of Donald Trump's mental health would be a good place but the title obviously needs work. The article would be about the movement of thousands (according to Tataral) of psychologists that have diagnosed him without examining him.

Obviously, their conclusions would be covered so I think it's a reasonable compromise.--v/r - TP 02:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Healtherism? Seriously, though, I think that would be a reasonable compromise. There is certainly a distinct phenomenon of mental health professionals forming opinions about Trump in a way they have not about previous presidents (there was also Bush on the Couch, but that was a single psychoanalyst, as far as I can recall). If GreenMeansGo is amenable to such a solution, I would be favorable to making this an article specifically on that movement (and the APA response to it) and moving it to an appropriate title. bd2412 T 02:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Healtherism is too broad a topic and could also cover the claims that Hillary was on her deathbed leading up to the 2016 elections. But, yeah, I think we're at a compromise as long as the change in article title comes with a change in article topic as well. It wouldn't be the same article, but I see significant overlap.--v/r - TP 02:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've not been able to follow  this super closely. Anyway, I don't see that my opinion is singularly important just because I was the nominator. GMG^talk 03:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

alt) 17:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

If there are sources discussing this as a general concept, and we can put a name to it, I think that would be reasonable. The situation with numbers of mental health experts specifically commenting on Trump's state of mind, however, seems to be its own uniquely notable phenomenon, without historical precedent for a holder of this office. bd2412 T 21:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm not particularly attached to the idea. Just figured I'd throw it out there. I have about zero interest in this topic overall and not even sure how I landed here.--v/r - TP 21:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous other articles? GMG^talk 03:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a giant HIPAA violation. That’s what it is. Trillfendi (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi:, are you asserting that this article has been edited by Donald Trump's healthcare providers and their associated business, which constitute the entities covered under HIPAA per 45 CFR § 160.103? bd2412 T 22:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: Who in their right mind would think that a Trump associate was writing this crap? Trillfendi (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume, someone who thought there was a HIPAA violation here, since HIPAA only applies to institutions and entities that are actually treating a patient, and their associates. If you'd like, I can provide you with some HIPAA materials that I worked on while assisting professionals who were working in the field. bd2412 T 00:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

bd2412, I understand what your saying, but I wanted to clarify why I thought it best for us to exercise caution. Perhaps this article explains it best. It doesn't hurt to be cautious. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Per that article, "a reporter relying on a public document or public official—is not liable for the any harm resulting from repeating a defamatory statement". Wikipedia exists for the purpose of documenting encyclopedic information and conveying this to the public. We are within the reporter's privilege. I haven't seen any kind of action being taken against the mental health personnel who have actually provided their medical opinions, much less against sources like the New York Times, BBC, or even Fox News, which have reported their claims. With as broad a body of reporting as there has been, we shouldn't proceed as if the claims don't exist, but I am amenable to the compromise proposal TParis has made above to convert this into an article specifically on the phenomenon of a substantial number of mental health professionals making claims about a specific patient that they have not examined, and the response of the APA and other governing bodies to that practice. bd2412 T 20:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It is possible that this article should be titled "personality of Donald Trump" rather than "health of Donald Trump", and that its scope should be adjusted accordingly. The main issue in the coverage of this topic is how his personality affects his presidency, the United States and the world, and whether he poses a danger to his country or the world (many experts argue that he does). His personality is a broader issue than just his health; a person's personality doesn't necessarily have to be pathological in nature or described in the form of diagnoses. Psychologists and other experts can offer insight into the personality even of a person with no mental illness. While thousands of mental health professionals[6] have weighed in on Trump's personality and mental health, the debate is broader and includes commentators from other fields too. --Tataral (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to move the goalposts. The article before us is the health of Donald Trump. You're not only suggesting renaming it, but adding different content. The personality of Donald Trump is a completely different topic and we do not have to discuss it here.--

Rusf10 (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

No, I'm not. I proposed personality as the primary focus weeks ago when discussing the inclusion of this material in the main biographical article, so this is what I always believed was the better focus. It's perfectly natural to discuss the improvement, scope and focus of the article here. It's not "a completely different topic", it's a somewhat broader perspective that also includes his mental health, but that isn't limited to it, and that also focuses on how his personality affects his actions as a politician. --Tataral (talk) 02:35, 12 June 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.

Tripper (chess) (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)

Was prodded two years ago ("adequate sources do not appear to exist") and de-prodded with the rationale "save the stuff here, to wait a bit for Ihardlythinkso's stores of material". Since then, there have been a total of 4 edits to the article, whose value you can judge for yourself. I find no evidence that this has been the subject of discussion or analysis anywhere, ever.

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 20:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Pinging @Ihardlythinkso: to see if he has sources giving significant coverage. I created the article; note that, since the piece is mentioned in Fairy chess piece as one of the basic leapers, it can probably be redirected there if it turns out that notability cannot be demonstrated. Double sharp (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if we discussed before. If earlier I mentioned "Fiveleaper" and/or "Root-50-Leaper" in this context ("Other Named Leapers", Dickins 1971, p. 11), that w/ be wrong as those pieces have "double-pattern movement". Dickins p. 30 has null entries in his "Named Leapers" table for "3rd-step" orthogonal and diagonal leapers. Also from p. 30, "V—GENERAL · A. THE THEORY OF MOVEMENTS—Leapers, Riders and Hoppers.":

All chessmen in all three categories are derived from one or both of the two basic single-step Leapers, the Wazir (orthogonal) and the Fers (diagonal), which cover between them all three squares of the 'first step' from a1. The Dabbaba (orthogonal), the Alfil (diagonal) and the Knight (angular) cover between them all five squares of the second step. There are not enough named Leapers to cover all the squares of the remaining steps, but wherever a named Leaper does not exist, a numbered one may be used, thus: 0-4 Leaper, 3-5 Leaper, etc, etc.

(Italics added by me for emphasis.) So clearly it's 3-3 Leaper per Dickins. (Dickins, Anthony (1971) [Corrected repub. of 1969 2nd ed., The Q Press, Richmond, Surrey, England]. A Guide to Fairy Chess. New York:

ISBN 0-486-22687-5.)

There's nothing I know of re it in either two Pritchard encyclopedias. Sorry that's all I have! --IHTS (talk) 06:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

OK then, in the absence of significant mentions with the name in reliable sources, I would favour redirection to Fairy chess piece#Tripper. (Since the name is in some use online, such as this site predating the Wikipedia article, it strikes me as a plausible search term.) Double sharp (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine with me. --

talk) 17:57, 7 June 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 List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nickelodeon animated shows

List of Nickelodeon animated shows (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 list is for the most part uncited, and includes trivial information that probably could never be referenced. Some of the information I tried to verify and cannot (e.g. anything about "Juban Productions"). Also a glowing target for LTA Nickelodeon vandals. ... discospinster _talk 19:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article is redundant to List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon. Ajf773 (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon, which could have been done through normal editing. postdlf (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect This is redundant to Nickelodeon Animation Studio where this appears to be spun-off (i.e. copied) from and as nom points out could attract Nick vandals thus not a good candidate for simply redirecting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:16, 8 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of Nero

Sons of Nero (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 design studio. Fails WP:COMPANY. 9H48F (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The current references do not indicate a level of significant coverage needed to meet notability guidelines and a web search doesn't turn up anything of greater significance. Peacock (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Sangat Singh

Baba Sangat Singh (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)

Other than a few brief mentions, and a short bio on a government page, not enough to pass

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the sole source which grants his non-notability. ∯WBG^converse 06:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, It is just a line and not an article and poorly sourced Alex-h (talk) 16:07, 9 June 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) 23:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mere (footballer)

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

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

Contested PROD. Subject fails both

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or draftify Subject does not meet
  WP:FPL. I'd need more time to decide if he meets GNG, but this content should exist somewhere as if he's not notable now, he will be soon. Smartyllama (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. No need to draftily, can be restored if/when he manages in FPL. GiantSnowman 07:43, 7 June 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.

Fred Luddy

Fred Luddy (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)

previously deleted and recreated. Appreciate an admin checking to see if G4 applies. Fails

• KEEP He passes
  WP:GNG with what's in the article now. Forbes [7] and Bloomberg [8] both give him significant coverage of how he went from broke to billionaire. Also the fact it was deleted 13 years ago doesn't mean it can't exist today since it now has reliable sources giving him significant coverage. The AFD at that time mention his company article was up for deletion too and it was also deleted then recreated later when it became notable. Dream Focus 17:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn perhaps I was a little hasty here. There are patterns that one like me who edits a lot of notable lists sees that indicate UPE and this hit all the check boxes. Still think it is likely UPE, but the guy does appear notable. Will close. Smack me with fish at will. John from Idegon (talk) 18:29, 6 June 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.

Capacitygrid

Capacitygrid (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)

Now here's an odd thing. Page was created by User talk:Markgaukrodger in July 2013, and that is the main contributor. They have made no edits to any other article page and none since 2015. Their talk page shows that Capacitygrid was tagged for deletion in June 2013, but the article history does not go back that far and no deletion tags are shown. Presumably, it was deleted and then recreated???? Whatever, there is no evidence of notability, it has forever been tagged as "advert" and for 4 years as "orphan". Emeraude (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 30 May 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 11:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warda (film)

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

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

Another short film I'm having trouble finding notability for. As a note-I can find films from 1956, 2014 and 2018 with this title, but none from 2008. Getting tons of matches for a 2014 film with this name though. But this one? No. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J'ai bu du café dans un café, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La cita (film), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Fenêtre, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humburgun (All of these have a similar case, have much more I have tagged from the same creator) Wgolf (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, hi Wgolf, i see you added a deadlink tag to the FCAT reference, for your and other editors info here is a link to the external links reference that works, hooray!:)) although it doesn't help much (see below) :( Coolabahapple (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, there may be some copyright issues here as the article synopsis is exactly the same as the source given. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet
  remotely reliable, source cited in the article gives the synopsis only. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:26, 14 June 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Jafar Awards

Mir Jafar 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)

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I was unable to find any independent sources – in English, Hindi, Punjabi, or Bengali – discussing these awards besides this one listed in the Wikipedia article. The non-English searches weren't very thorough as I don't speak those three languages, so make of that what you will. May warrant a short mention, however, in
  Bhopal gas tragedy. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 09:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sumeet Singh

Sumeet Singh (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 coverage to meet

Additional info - page was twice deleted as

WP:G11). Previous incarnations were created by now-blocked user Mr. Sumeet Singh. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete have had this on my watchlist and it's been an uphill battle trying to keep it neutral in the face of promotional editing by obviously connected editors who think they own the article. It still is a case of
  WP:PROMO and is mainly original research so it's best deleted. If better sources can be found in the future a neutral editor would be better skilled at recreating a non-promotional article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: The earlier
  evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 09:05, 13 June 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.

Sebastian Albrecht

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

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

Subject does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Lehr

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

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

Subject does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant independent coverage to meet
  WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete another in a long line of non-notable hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 12 June 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.

Zûg

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

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly the name "Zûg" is written with the circumflex and not without it. It is not written or pronounced like the German world "Zug" or the city in Switzerland. If you search for "Zûg" on google you will have about 21.300 results related to the artist and also the search box will suggest all related searches like "Zûg - Algunos Sentimientos", "Zûg - EP 1", "Zûg - EP 2", "Zûg - EP 1 (PROS001)", "Zûg - Interstellar", there is also at least 4 videos in youtube published by external sources with more than 25k views and lots of comments from fans. This all proves that it does not fail

The album 'Algunos Sentimientos' by Zûg has been compared to the most essential micro-house music ever written by most experts of electronic music 'connaisseurs' being the people behind the biggest record shops in the world who only write reviews of most notable music works and their reviews are hardly ever comparing recordings with the most essential records ever produced. If you read many reviews from Amoeba Music in the U.S. and Juno Records in the U.K., you will see that they are almost never comparing records with the most essential records ever published. When the most discerning and knowledgeable people in the world on the subject state publicly that they are impressed by the works of a musician and draw comparisons with the most notable pieces of music of the genre ever written on the history of electronic music, it can only mean that the music is truly relevant, thus should be included in Wikipedia, knowing that there are dozens of other electronic music producers listed on Wikipedia without having the recognition that Zûg has from the real experts on the subject. It should be more relevant, an artist with only 1 or 2 really good records, than an artist with a dozen not that good records.

Lagasta, I mentioned "Zug" without a circumflex because it's a viable alternative search term for this artist – in fact, the Juno Records and Amoeba Records websites that you quote and have used as sources in the article both spell his name without the circumflex on their websites [10], [11]. I am just saying that although it is clearly a viable alternative search title, the fact it has various meanings in German just makes it harder to use as a search term. Richard3120 (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard3120, That is because the server from those websites does not allow special characters as Wikipedia or Discogs do. But we know they are talking about Zûg (Musician) or Zûg (DJ). If your search term requires a special character you need to type it, in order to get the right results. Lagasta (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Subject falls short of notability guidelines by a country mile; I don't have anything to add to the nom. As far as the arguments for keeping it listed above by the article's creator go, using the fact that this DJ has videos about him on YouTube with 25k views and "lots of comments from fans" to try to advance notability is ridiculous, and implicitly attests to how far away from notability guidelines this subject is. They throw out completely unsourced claims that the most discerning, expert minds in the music industry are praising this DJ's work as "magnificent", and they go on to argue that Zûg should be included, "knowing that there are dozens of other electronic music producers listed on Wikipedia without having the recognition that Zûg has", which is patent whataboutism. I don't think I need to point this out, but literally nothing in that impassioned prose about this subject's notability holds up to any actual scrutiny. Comment: Algunos Sentimientos should be looked into for nomination as well. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechnician27: you see now from the length of this argument why I felt it would be best not to bundle the song into this nomination for now... Richard3120 (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: Yeah, I uh... Probably should have seen that coming, in retrospect. Sorry about that. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 10:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TheTechnician27, the General notability guidelines state that reliable sources address the topic directly and in detail like Amoeba Music, Juno Records and Phonica Records has with Algunos Sentimientos. Amoeba Music is the voice of experience in music and they explain [12] in detail why the music written by Zûg in (Algunos Sentimientos) is magnificent or magic. And that falls short for a trivial mention. They address the topic directly and in detail. That is why it complies with Wikipedias General notability guideline [13]. Same as the words by Juno Records in the U.K. Lagasta (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So in order, we have the website of a chain of California music stores, an online database of questionable notability, and I guess a London-based vinyl website. Even if we cast aside how notable these sources are, you claim that these sources address the subject in detail, yet combined, these three entries don't even amount to 300 words. What you seem to be caught up on is how the authors of these entries perceive the album; you keep focusing on how they call it, for example, "magnificent". But that's not the issue at hand; for all anyone here cares, these entries could call Zûg's work the best music ever, the worst music ever, or anything in-between. What matters is the sources themselves and how much coverage of the subject is given between them. Per

WP:NALBUM. For all I know, more searching may turn up new sources that advance notability, but this is incredibly doubtful. Nonetheless, that kind of search is something for another day. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 09:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

TheTechnician27, it feels like you are demeaning everything. You say about

House Music only means that the article is relevant. And you can also trust that this Wikipedia inclusion will only happen today and only today. This is not happening every week or month or even year.Lagasta (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

"This records shops are the voice of experience." But they are not

reliable sources as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and no amount of argument is going to change that. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Lard Almighty, If you know of some other entity as or more reliable on electronic music than Amoeba Music and Juno Records please tell us and case closed. Lagasta (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Case is closed. They are not reliable. You cannot rely on them per Wikipedia policy. Period. As the creator of the article, it is up to you to find sources that meet Wikipedia's reliability requirements. There are lots of reliable music industry publications out there (e.g. NME). Can you find a single one where Zûg has received coverage over a period of time? Lard Almighty (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lard Almighty, why you say that according to Wikipedia the sources Amoeba Music and Juno Records are not reliable? Lagasta (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Red

reliable sources. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Lard Almighty, I did read

reliable sources and there is nothing there to indicate me that Amoeba Music and Juno Records are not reliable. Amoeba Music and Juno Records are third-party. Lagasta (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

When millions of people around the world trust their judgment knowing that they only want to offer the best for the people, there is nothing to question. Is not politics, is music. They have also limited copies of the music so is not that they are lying because they want to sell the records, they only have few compies. They win very very little money. And normally there is no repress for this kind of editions. They are 1000 in existence (500 of each) plus 10 test pressings hand painted by the artist and some people pay up to 7 times the price [14] [15] [16] from the regular edition. With their review, they are only doing their job. The job of a record shop is to offer the best they have on each genre from the music they get from different distributors. We are talking about underground electronic music, cult music. The editions of records are about 500 records. This is not mainstream. I will write in here soon an article for 'Contemporary Underground Electronic Music Movement' for you to understand more the situation. But first I hope you understand why the voice of Amoeba Music and Juno Records are the most reliable sources on contemporary underground electronic music. Lagasta (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Magazines are like movies, movies of real life, they have all this characters to play with and tell the stories they want with them and what matters is how many cars they have or how much money or how cool they look. While the record stores like Amoeba Music only talk about the music, music for them is serious and is again the only thing that matters. What matters in the magazines is the pictures, cause is a print, there is no music on magazines. The music is in the record shops like Amoeba Music and they listen to music all day. Lagasta (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails
  reliable source. — sparklism ^hey! 13:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I still think like many others that the record stores have THE word on the music. They own it. But if you want to put in front of them the magazine publications is up to you, but is not fair. Anyhow I will write the article talking about the electronic music culture in Berlin, I hope to find enough Reliable Sources to show that Berlin is the center in the world for underground electronic music. Is something it needs to be in Wikipedia for the world to know what's going on here in the capital of techno, and not written by some magazine but written by people that live and breath in the scene. Is like talking about the hip-hop in the Bronx back in the day. Is what's happening here, and is important for the history of electronic music. And of course, I will include Zûg and many other Producers DJs, record labels and independent distributors that are releasing all this cult music that is the electronic music of our times, 2019, 2002, and I am not talking about David Geta or all that commercial circus. I am talking about electronic music made by today's most talented electronic musicians creating music for cultured people. So if you want to delete Zûg's article now you can do it. But sooner or later the page will be here. So I want to propose to keep this article in Wikipedia until I finish writing the article on the electronic music scene in Berlin, capital of techno. Lagasta (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles on Berghain, Tresor and Matrix which have sources that can help with your proposed article. Richard3120 (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Autobiography of non
  notable musician. Wikipedia is not a free web host for promoting yourself. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Stores are not independent of the products they promote and sell. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, does not meet
  wikireliable as record stores are in the business of selling records, and may promote musicians on their websites accordingly (in a similar way, WP does not accept author/book reviews from bookstores as reliable, although people/customers in non-WP land may use such reviews in their reading/purchasing decisions). Coolabahapple (talk) 04:53, 14 June 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dementia screening test

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

)

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

This article is about a non-notable mobile phone ap (it is not a medical test in the traditional sense). The only reference in the article that actually mentions the app is a product review. The rest of the article is medical information about dementia, not directly related to the product described. Edit: I have now removed the off topic content from the article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure if this page wasn't listed on the AFD notification page, or just didn't get any traction. I agree with the nominator this article seems more like a company trying to get their app popular by having a wikipedia page vs a popular app that happens to have a wikipedia page. --VViking_TalkEdits 13:51, 13 June 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Y-Zet

Y-Zet (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 too sure about this, some mentions in connection with joint projects, and some page not available links. Even the stuff we have seems to be no more then a paragraph or two announcing a new album. Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a disruptive nomination as there is already plenty of significant coverage in Burmese reliable sources referenced in the article. This
  WP:NMUSICIAN #1,#2,#5. Princess of Myadaung (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I'm going to assume, lacking evidence to the contrary, that someone who was apparently given a seven-minute profile/interview on
  MRTV is in fact "one of the most popular hip hop singer [sic] in Myanmar". Full disclosure: I don't speak Burmese, so for all I know he could be saying in the interview "I'm definitely not even in the top ten hip hop artists in my hometown, let alone in Myanmar. I have no idea why English Wikipedia will have an article on me in four years time -- nor even how I know that. Anyway, I gotta gear up for the Greek debt crisis and US and Cuba re-establishing diplomatic relations later this year. It's 2015!" Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep – Published two albums (Pyaw San Par with another artist in 2015 and Za solo in 2017), but I can't tell if they were on a major record label or not to meet NMUSIC #5, nor whether anything went gold to meet NMUSIC #3. However, appears to meet NMUSIC #1, if not GNG, by virtue of the 7-minute interview posted by Hijiri and [18] [19] [20], plus coverage of a fatal concert brawl [21] and [22]. Some of these are definitely reliable sources, others I can't tell, but erring on the side of keep because it's clear we don't have good access to foreign-language sources here. – Levivich 18:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per
  WP:AGF. Miniapolis 23:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep He meets
  WP:NSINGER #1 (explain per above) and #5 as "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels", he released his albums on a major record lebel Legacy Music see here [23]. Shin Khant (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep has coverage in multiple reliable sources as per Levivich so passes criteria #1 of WP:NMUSIC and has also released on a notable record label so should be included #5. I don't like hip hop music but this singer is one of the most popular hip hop artists in my country. KoHtee (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per
  WP:AGF- --MA Javadi (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zlatan Ibile

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 notability level like

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. HandsomeBoy (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. HandsomeBoy (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets
  WP:GNG
  .

The Nation "19-year-old student wins Airtel One Mic Talent show"

The Guardian Zlatan Ibile Is The Street’s Latest Pop Culture

He's credited with popularizing a dance called Zanku. See "Zanku: the new viral dance that has taken over the Nigerian music scene" (Pulse Nigeria) and "Is Zanku Set to Be the New Dance Craze of 2019?" (OkayAfrica).

Vanguard "Naira Marley, Zlatan Ibile, others arrested by EFCC over Internet Fraud"

Pitchfork "Two Nigerian Rappers Were Arrested by the Government for Scamming—But Did They Do It?" Blumpf (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as he seems to have plenty of substancial coverage in multiple reliable sources as shown above and therefore passes
  WP:BASIC and so he deserves to be included, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - per Blumpf.Tamsier (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's a whole lot of coverage on the subject from reliable sources. Clearly passes
  WP:GNG as his song has been on the country's national music chart. Lapablo (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. article Meets
  WP:GNG Samat lib (talk) 07:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Meets WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]