Wikipedia : Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 1

Casey Calvert (actress)

)

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

Fails PORNBIO. Can't agree she passes GNG either

Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

{talk} 11:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

{talk} 11:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

{talk} 11:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets
WP:ENT#2.[1]Guilherme Burn (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. What part of WP:PORNBIO does she fail, exactly? (SN: Guilherme Burn, while I agree that the article should be kept, her Instagram account isn't a good source; better sources include: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How are sources written by the subject, rather than about her, any better than Instagram?
Phil Bridger (talk) 10:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

"Instagram account isn't a good source" Why not? For the listed requirement I believe good.Guilherme Burn (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is based on coverage in independent reliable sources. What the subject writes about herself on Instagram is neither independent nor reliable.
Phil Bridger (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@
Phil Bridger: It is not a question of "What the subject writes about herself", but rather of number of fans.Guilherme Burn (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

No. As I said, notability is based on coverage in independent reliable sources. Number of fans has nothing to do with it.
Phil Bridger (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

usual group of "delete" !voters in porn-related AfDs. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Sources written by the subject are not considered to contribute towards notability for anyone else, so why should they be so considered for porn actors? The only other source that you linked is clearly a press release, so also not independent. And I don't see any "delete" opinions here based on
Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Primary sources aren't prohibited (see
WP:PRIMARY); if they were, many journalists probably wouldn't have articles (see many of the subjects under Category:MSNBC people). Anyway, as for the idea that I'm the one arguing the other point, well, you probably haven't taken part in many of the other porn-related AfDs over the years. Speaking of that, in these types of AfDs, people who commonly !vote "delete" (again, not you), argue that the article doesn't have any independent sourcing from the subject, but "independent" always seems to be confused to suggest that most of the sources should be independent of pornography (pornography is a category; the title of the article itself is the subject). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete lacks sustained coverage needed to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet
WP:ENT; significant RS coverage not found. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. None of the sources cited in the article are independent and reliable, and the sources offered above in support are obviously not either. The only one not written by the subject herself is clearly a press release.
Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. She meets
WP:PAG. Britishfinance (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Which award(s) do you consider to pass
Phil Bridger (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

Comment The "Unsung Siren" category is an
XRCO Award#Unsung Siren), also meets the WP:PORNBIO requirement that "Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration". You may not like the subject (and clearly many above don't), but the WP rules are the rules. She passes WP:PORNBIO. Britishfinance (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Are you reading the same
Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment WP:PORNBIO highlights two of the awards that it considers signicfiant by listing their halls of fame - AVN and XRCO (I'm sure that the case for other porn awards such as the
XRCO Award in 2018 as well, and I have updated her BLP for this. Britishfinance (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Once again, being in a hall of fame is not the same as winning a minor award. The fact that Calvert was still unsung three years after first receiving an award for being unsung is that very unusual thing that we get at a deletion discussion, positive evidence of non-notability.
Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

It is about winning an
XRCO Award. And she has two (in a solo category, which is the only category that WP:PORNBIO is specific about). You are trying to argue a case of non-notability from winning a notable award (as recorded and listed in the WP XRCO article since 1993). Britishfinance (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

About fifty years ago I won a very notable award, a
Phil Bridger (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

It would if the winners of Blue Peter Badges were discretely watched by tens of millions of people per day on BluePeter.com sites; and WP:BLUEPETERBIO clarified that because nobody wants to be associated with watching Blue Peter Badge winners (including Tier 1 RS), they should be recorded on WP. Britishfinance (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Erpert - Given the notable awards won as well as the indepth sources above this is an easy keep, Meets PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:14, 10 March 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.

Dagger (zine)

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

Article PRODded with reason "References only present in-passing mentions. Fails

WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator with reason New references, remove {{Proposed deletion}}". However, the added references are just more in-passing mentions. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

~~Keep~~ Delete. Not sure, the
Refimprove section}} for this. Conclusion: Keep. Ricksanchez (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The article creator has put in a lot of effort to find anything that mentions this zine. If no substantial sources have been found now, they probably don't exist. Adding a template doesn't change that much. And without in-depth sources, GNG is not met and we don't keep articles just because they are not promotional. --Randykitty (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat agree, but I think you are using a fairly heavy-handed interpretation of GNG here. And to your point, that, "we don't keep articles just because they are not promotional" that is certainly your viewpoint, but that is not a standard that is uniformly applied to WP (nor do I believe it should be). Sourcing within WP is much different in my view than sourcing in say a peer-reviewed published article, for example, because of the dynamics of the internet, what people feel is "important" and the way older "internet 1.0" sites have been handled (aka, papered over as if they never existed). This mix of zeitgeist and temporal dynamics makes GNG a much less objective standard than WP would like us to believe. Of course that is my viewpoint, and I am sure you disagree, but this is a nice discussion so thank you! Ricksanchez (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I agree with what I wrote, you have convinced me otherwise. I think I will change my stance to: Delete.Ricksanchez (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I thought long and hard about this article. It's well written, so... I'm loathe to delete. But notability is not very strongly established. However, we have a pitchfork article explicitly calling out Dagger as one of the best zines and was similarly endorsed by Maximumrockandroll, soooo... to me that suggests Wikipedia needs information on it. I would support a merge to
b} 09:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment You can't be serious. The complete mention of Dagger in that pitchfork article is "One of the best, Tim Hinely’s Dagger, is still going strong". We can't really base an article on that. I agree that Tim Hinely appears to be notable. Several of the references in this article mention Dagger only when they talk about him ("Tim Hinely, who publishes Dagger, said..." or similar, followed by several paragraphs about Hinely). So yes, it would have been preferable if the effort that went into creating this article on a non-notable zine had been put into a bio of Hinely, with a mention of Dagger, to which this could then have been redirected. Until such a bio is created, however, we're stuck with this article on an obviously non-notable subject. --Randykitty (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sadly there's just not enough for WP:GNG. The sources are thin, and their quality not great (with exceptions like Pitchfork, but there is just a mention). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hello, I am the writer of Dagger (zine). Dagger is a source of in-depth content, containing interviews, editorials, album reviews, live reviews and "Best Of" lists. Underground zines generally do not receive a lot of press coverage, since they are the press coverage. Dagger, in comparison with other zines that live unaffected on Wikipedia is well sourced. Second, Dagger is possibly the oldest continuous music zine still printed. At nearly thirty-two years old, Tim Hinely has contributed substantially to independent music journalism; he is an expert in the field, and well respected by contemporaries. Zines require a lot of effort to publish. Typing, printing, copying, folding and stapling; artist interviews, especially pre-internet, is about as difficult and time consuming as a senior project or thesis, multiple times a year. As an art form or academic effort, Dagger is prolific. Third, RandyKitty's first edit was to adjust formatting; with presumably no issue of notability. Calling the style I used (which is used in featured articles) "ugly," they reverted their edit, and put a tag asking for references. After adding references, I removed the tag according to its directions. Then, a deletion tag was put up. This incremental process is conflicting. I check their edits to see what kind of style and sourcing they preferred. I come upon Globalizations. Comparing the two articles (Dagger and Globalizations) I find RandyKitty's preference conflicting. This is not to place Globalizations in jeopardy. Maybe someone with access to other databases is able to find something? For example, Byrdie Green; an editor with a Newspapers.com account was able to locate sources. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm going to ignore your comments about the formatting stuff (comment on the issues,
notability. Most of what you write above isn't about the zine, but about Hinely. Perhaps Hinely himself is notable, but that is not the issue here. What is the issue here is that neither one of your first two points contribute to the notability of the zine. --Randykitty (talk) 10:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:GNG.Lacks indepth sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per commenters above. It does not matter that this article is rather well-wrtitten. The subject is not notable, though. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 23:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Pharaoh of the Wizards, like Randkitty and Globalizations, I wanted to get an idea of what you use for in depth sourcing and I found Keyur Bhushan, where there is no sourcing greater than Dagger. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 00:04, 10 March 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.

IAG Consulting

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

Article currently lacks reliable independent sources. A search shows a number of possible sources but nothing that looks to me like like it would properly support notability. Mccapra (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Pretty much a
WP:BEFORE shows that this is a smal localised consulting firm. Corporate bio-spam. Britishfinance (talk) 10:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Google News, Search, and Books all come up nil when I search for the page name and variations (along with the founder names). Not sure what other search terms to try but currently there is nothing that amounts to
WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Nothing provided or found (including occasional quotation of the company's research papers on the role of requirements gathering, etc.) indicates this to be more than a consultancy firm going about its business. Fails
WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete There's only one source currently in the article and a basic BEFORE fails to find any others. Sort of a case of WP:PROMOTIONALISM. Fails GNG IMO. Chetsford (talk) 17:41, 8 March 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. ansh 666 07:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hillard Heintze

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

Of the fifteen refs cited, 12 are to the organisation’s own website, one is a listing, one is not a ref about the company, and one is to a page updated so it no longer mentions Hillard Heintze. Notability not demonstrated. Mccapra (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Most references are to the company's website, one is to a list with no significant coverage, and the executive protection article doesn't even mention this company. Non-notable business that also fails the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article created by a
WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This appears to be a case of
WP:REFBOMBing. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 17:42, 8 March 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. Clear consensus that NACTOR (as the appropriate notability grounds) is clearly satisfied

(non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Yu Bo

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

Delete There seems to be no single source in this article about this actor. It also doesn't mention anything about his career. Even though he did appear in some movies as the main character, there is no source that tells him about his date of birth. It fails

WP:NCORP. Evil Idiot (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 21:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets
WP:NCORP does not apply to people, and AfD is not about the state of sourcing in an article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep - I've added a short description of his career. He played a leading role in dozens of films and TV series, and was nominated at the
WP:NACTOR. -Zanhe (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep OMFG! Just kidding ??? He is notable Chinese actor who has played lead and major featured roles in several Chinese Wuxia series, and Martial series. I'm from Myanmar but i well known him since my childhood days, because one of his wuxia series "The Legend of Mirror" (灵镜传奇) was aried on Myanmar national televisions and was popular in my country in around 2002s. Hninthuzar (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs improvement with additional references but the actor has plenty of leading roles so easily passes
WP:NACTOR Atlantic306 (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Sorry for piling in, but using
WP:NACTOR. Hzh (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that NGEO, as the appropriate notability guidelines, is satisfied

(non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Canyon Group

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

Delete There seems to be little or no information about this geologic group in Texas. There is only one source in this article. It also fails

WP:NCORP. Evil Idiot (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 21:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment this nomination is based on a misunderstanding.
WP:NCORP does not apply as this isn’t a corporate group it’s a geological structure. Sources here here and [13]. Mccapra (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Meets the relevant notability guideline
WP:NGEO, per sources found by Mccapra. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, meets
WP:NGEO, numerous sources available that define this, in addition to those above here are a couple more: Depositional systems in the Pennsylvanian Canyon Group of North-Central Texas, and from Lexicon of Geologic Names of the United States for 1936-1960, Part 1. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of reliable sources found. Mccapra (talk) 07:20, 8 March 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. Eagerly awaiting List of kosher Chinese restaurants. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of kosher restaurants

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

The previous discussion about the deletion of this article focused on the fact that there are innumerable kosher restaurants in the world and this list contains only a small selection of not particularly notable restaurants (and some of them are closed). All of that is true, but I would like to add another point to consider here. Many of the keep votes in the previous AfD discussion equated kosher cuisine with other types of ethnic cuisine. This is not an accurate comparison. Not all restaurants can categorically be called "kosher" or "not kosher". Different rabbinic authorities have different opinions about what's allowed and what's not. In fact, this particular list even includes Second Avenue Deli, whose kosher status is the subject of significant debate among kosher-observant Jews (and not for factual reasons but for reasons related to the requirements of kosher designation in the first place). Since it's really not possible to objectively categorize a restaurant as kosher or otherwise, this list can never be truly verified for accuracy. --דניאל - Dantheman531 21:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most classifications have some corner cases and disputes – see
WP:LISTN and here's some fresh evidence: London; NYC. Andrew D. (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep For two reasons. 1. These restaurants are notable, as can be seen from the fact that they have an article. 2. I strongly reject the notion that it can not be verified if these restaurants are kosher. That is not something Wikipedia needs to decide. If they have a kosher certificate, or are commonly called kosher, then for Wikipedia purposes that is enough. Debresser (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with respect due to the nominator, as I personally disapprove of this kind of list—so often a magnate for fancruft and promotionalism. But, unfortunately, in this case reliable sources describe the restaurants as Kosher, so, having taken responsibility, we can noe describe them so also. As for the general problem with lists such as these, well—notwithstanding
WP:OSE—we'd probably have to do something about List of Chinese restaurants as well... :) ——SerialNumber54129 19:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment reading
π, ν) 04:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
WP:LISTPURP. It's a list of notable kosher restaurants per Wikipedia's standards, not a list of all kosher restaurants. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 8 March 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) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ja'afar Mahmud Adam

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

Does not meet

Jim and the soapdish 19:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

(non-admin closure) Andrew D. (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Keep as even just a simple Google Books search finds multiple sources covering the subject, e.g. [14] [15] [16]. [17] describes his killing as a "turning point that made the violence in 2009 inevitable". See also the short and not exactly independent [18].
talk) 21:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep A whole book has been written about him and referred extensively in many others. He's a key figure that can't be left out in any historical analysis of evolution of Boko Haram insurgency. His death alone has been covered extensively as can be seen in this VOA report or this. There are enough sources to improve the article, though not all are in English. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet
WP:GNG
. The two reports above are hardly significant RS. George Custer's Sabre 01:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep. Continuing news coverage - [19][[20][21]. Books - [22][23][24]. Finding sources for African figures is often hard (media and coverage of Africa in English - even for Nigeria (official language English) - is not as developed as in other countries) - for this individual it is quite easy to see there are many sources out there (as well as a few interwikis). Icewhiz (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it feels a little like piling on, but given the !vote tally is only 3-2 despite great sourcing work by previous editors. Icewhiz's clearly demonstrates GNG Nosebagbear (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Bakazaka's analysis is compelling and the nomination is getting no traction with other editors.

Lord Haw-Haw

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

I redirected the page to William Joyce, since this is a duplicate of that article. Another editor removed the redirect with the edit summary “There was a clear consensus on the Talk page NOT to merge the articles.” First of all, a redirect and a merge are not the same thing. Second, I have issues with consensus on talk pages. Personally, I see no reason for duplicate articles with different titles. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 18:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—
Talk to my owner:Online 18:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep under
talk) 18:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

(non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Keep (or rather, I oppose the proposed redirect)-
talk) 18:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. The WP comparison tool does show a lot of difference in the articles (Lord Haw-Haw vs. William Joyce) so they are a long way from being duplicates. On that basis, I am not sure that AfD is the right forum for getting a merge of two seperate, fully referernced, notable articles? However, I'm not sure I fully agree with the split, although both names are highly notable (Load Haw-Haw even more so), so I could argue eitherway; the Talk Page consensus was based on a small group? Britishfinance (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles are clearly not duplicates. This article is about the ironic title "Lord Haw Haw", and the several people who were described this way. The article on William Joyce is about one of these people. The contents are very different, and there is very little common content or overlap. A redirect or deletion would therefore lose much useful material which is in this article. I wonder whether the proposer has actually read and compared both articles, since it is difficult to see how anyone can consider them to be duplicates. RolandR (talk) 19:53, 1 March 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.

List of people with bipolar disorder

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

Recently an IP posted a proposed deletion of the page. I've removed the proposed deletion and am opening up a formal deletion discussion, as I feel that at the very least this is the type of thing that should be discussed. Here is their post:

"See

WP:BLP

issues."

I feel like a formal discussion will lay any concerns at rest one way or another. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this was discussed previously at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder, but was in 2005, before many policies came into play. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Speedy keep. Valid list article as many sources discuss famous people with bipolar disorder. This AfD is part of a series of driveby bad-faith deletion nominations by Special:Contributions/2606:5580:30C:7F9E:0:0:0:0/64. All of them should be kept. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet: What about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with autism spectrum disorders? It seems to not be too much different. 2606:5580:30C:7F9E:D05B:81E5:63E3:29CD (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My thought was that this could put rest to the concerns. I wasn't aware that he did this out of bad faith. Also, IP - please don't respond to every post. It's kind of heavy handed, as one post at the bottom of the page will do. This could be seen as harassment by these editors, as it's a bit much. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand. I got too carried away. I will take your other suggestions into account. 2606:5580:30C:7F9E:D05B:81E5:63E3:29CD (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep provided that all entries on this list are well and properly sourced, I see no policy-based reason that this should be deleted. Natureium (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Natureium: What about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with autism spectrum disorders? It seems to not be too much different. 2606:5580:30C:7F9E:D05B:81E5:63E3:29CD (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Having reviewed most of the cited sources on this page and familiarised myself with the Wikipedia guidelines for biographies, dismissing this proposal is obvious to me.Unoc (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Unoc: Should Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with autism spectrum disorders be undeleted then? 2606:5580:30C:7F9E:D05B:81E5:63E3:29CD (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment Sorry for replying too many times to other editors. However, for editors that think this page should be kept, should Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with autism spectrum disorders also have been kept? 2606:5580:30C:7F9E:D05B:81E5:63E3:29CD (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Keep the discussion on this item regardless of similar lists. – The Grid (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

By that reasoning nothing is needed.

Keep, Worth keeping as per
WP:STAND Legion X (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete this seems like a BLP violation for the living people, and is likely speculation by recent historians about the dead. I see no need for this article and a strong BLP reason to delete this.
π, ν) 04:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 10:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply