Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 17

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.

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 19:50, 17 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.

Opt in

Opt in (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)

Poorly written article, unencyclopedic. Apparently imported from Wiktionary, which doesn't seem acceptable. ᴀɴᴏɴʏᴍᴜᴤᴤ ᴜᴤᴇʀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 19:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The Wiktionary entry is sufficient. Mccapra (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert to redirect – I agree the article in its current form is not good and needs to either be cleaned up or reverted back to the Wiktionary redirect. I will comment that we have
  Opt-in redirects to Opt-in email; I would clean this up to redirect to to Opt in but will wait until the outcome of this deletion discussion.) —danhash (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comments: As it stands there is nothing here. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and certainly not a vehicle for unsourced dictionary entries. HOWEVER, I went to check a reference on the article above this (Alfie Best Jnr) and bailed out when the page went dark and I had to "opt-in" to receive cookies to view the page, I could go to "manage cookies" but the end result would have been to accept the cookies (opt-in) or maybe add an exception that is still an "opt-in" so I bailed out. This is a form of forced direct marketing campaigns that I disdain and a possible reason why coverage might be interesting. I would think and support possibly changing the title of Opt-in email to Opt-in services, Opt-in options or something like this, to cover all forms of related branches. The only reason it wouldn't now fit is simply because of the title but there is content that would fit (the email part). If this is covered under a title I did not come across then coverage or a redirect there might prove beneficial. I would like to see some coverage of this and content would be relevant for a subsection in HTTP cookie#Setting a cookie but that article does not appear to me to be for the general reader. Anyway, this is just something I ran into and maybe a plausible idea. Otr500 (talk) 15:58, 20 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.

Wendy Lou

Wendy Lou (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 of article does not desire to be part of the project and is of very minimal notability Medmyco (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as article creator. Subject is notable in multiple ways (book authorship and reviews, Canada Research Chair, Fellow Am. Stat. Assoc.). This article was created as part of a project (still incomplete) to improve coverage of women in statistics on Wikipedia by adding articles for all female ASA Fellows. Deletion would be a setback to that project. The Strickland affair should be a lesson on the danger to the reputation of the whole encyclopedia when we overzealously delete articles on notable female scientists. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Subject seems notable enough to me given the info in the article. But if she has requested her article deleted,
  WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is relevant though not conclusive. Tacyarg (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. She’s a full professor and research chair. No question she’s notable. Mccapra (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The Strickland case is a red herring. That BLP was strangled at birth by one editor who failed to follow Wikipedia guidelines. It never got to AfD, and would certainly have been kept by consensus if it had. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep per
  talk) 23:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The article subject's own wishes are not controlling on whether Wikipedia is allowed to maintain content about them or not — our rules dictate what stays and what goes, and the people our articles are about get no special veto rights. Yes, there are sometimes edge cases where we do respect the subject's wishes, if their notability claim is soft and not particularly well-referenced, but strictly speaking that still has more to do with whether the article conforms to our rules or not, rather than whether the subject wants an article or not. A person who has a strong and well-referenced notability claim gets kept regardless of their personal wishes, and a person who has a weak and poorly-referenced one gets deleted even if they want to be kept. So the fact that she "does not desire to be part of the project" carries no weight; the only thing that's relevant here at all is whether her notability is objectively "minimal" or not. And no, a full professor and Canada Research Chair is not of "minimal" notability. Bearcat (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bearcat. Also, is the deletion request by the article subject public anywhere? For example, if the request alleges serious BLP violations or mistakes, those should be addressed before just closing this as keep on purely notability grounds. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I generally agree with the trend of the discussion, and it roughly summarizes my counsel to the subject, Wendy Lou. However given her distress about the matter I promised to make an effort. My request was predicated on:

Where the subject of a BLP has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete.”

I concede that at least minimal notability is achieved simply by being a full professor at a university (although speaking as a similarly credentialed professor myself, I find that de facto less compelling). Even so I promised my friend Wendy I’d give it a try. Medmyco (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If she is distressed about the article, are you at liberty to disclose any specific concerns about the article content? If there's anything we can do to address her concerns short of deletion, I'm sure we would be more than happy to do that. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Prof. Lou definitely passes
  talk) 17:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete according to (claimed) wishes of subject. Notability is not overwhelming enough for keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete, especially if the subject wants the article on her gone. (Is this true?) While it is true that we reserve the right to dismiss a person's request for a Wikipedia page if that person fails to meet our notability guidelines, we should respect a person's right to remain unknown or be forgotten if they are not linked to any major events or persons. Furthermore, while she basically meets notability guidelines, readership has thus far been minimal. (I added the "annual readership" template to the article's talk page.) Recent spikes are likely due in no small part to this very discussion. Nerd271 (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've removed the birth year, which to my thinking could possibly cause distress or perceived ageism to a female professional as it is not something "widely published by reliable sources" and no longer appears in the source that was referenced anyway, per
  WP:DOB. I'm frankly torn - my personal desire would be to have her request fulfilled, as I am completely sympathetic to having privacy, yet a neutral article about someone recognized for "remarkable collaborations in the biomedical and healthcare sciences" in an esteemed position, particularly for women, is arguably something inspirational and of value to select Wikipedia readers. Perhaps she could give a statement privately to an admin as to her reasoning. LovelyLillith (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. She definitely meets
  WP:NPROF and therefore is a WP BLP; we can debate the degree of notability, but her qualification is not in doubt (which I think is the consensus view of this AfD). No problem with removing specific details from a BLP if it causes distress (as we did on Dhammika Dharmapala), but we would be creating a dangerous precedent (e.g. a WP:WENDYLOU), if a publically known and photographed figure (she is a Prof in a major university [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]; even her salary is public knowledge [11]), could have a bland BLP of public information deleted because she does not like it, or it causes her distress? She has her own LinkedIn page? [12] How do we progress after such a point? We have many "controversial" BLPs on WP whose subjects would also prefer it deleted if given the option - how would we respond to their future requests post WP:WENDYLOU? Britishfinance (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. Note also the reply of the volunteer response team (WP:OTRS) on the Dhammika Dharmapala Talk Page in response to that subject's desire to delete their BLP; they basically told him that if the material was publically available, then there was nothing they could do. I think if Wendy Lou has other issues with the BLP (versus all her other public bios per above) that we are not able to assess, then AfD is not the right process for her, it should be via the volunteer response team. Britishfinance (talk) 15:30, 24 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Haocun

Liu Haocun (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)

Actress who falls under too soon, so far has had just one role. Now maybe someday she will qualify for a article, but not yet. Wgolf (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Actually, so far she has had 0 role. That film hasn't been released and nobody knows how much screen time she got, if at all. There's virtually no biographical information anyway. Timmyshin (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  WP:TOOSOON with no released films or television series on her filmography Atlantic306 (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Just
  WP:TOOSOON for now. Lapablo (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Agree with
  WP:TOOSOON. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 17:10, 24 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.

Accor Asia Pacific’s Business Traveller Research

Accor Asia Pacific’s Business Traveller Research (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 seems to have somehow got through AfC in 2011. It’s about a standard business survey run by a hotel chain and I guess the purpose of the article is promotional. The survey got a bit of coverage at the time apparently but IAbot can’t recover any of the links. Run of the mill corporate news ruff and no real notability. Mccapra (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 17 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

White Frame

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

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

Non notable. No independent reliable source. ToT89 (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete yup. This is just an organisational promotional piece without notability based on on independent sources.
  talk) 19:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Delete because unfortunately
  WP:NCORP is now quite strict.--Theredproject (talk) 01:52, 21 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.

Olivia Oliver

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

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

No evidence of notability. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant independent coverage to meet
  WP:NSKATE. Papaursa (talk) 02:51, 21 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.

Petr Paleev

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

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

No evidence of notability. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant independent coverage to meet
  WP:NSKATE. Papaursa (talk) 02:52, 21 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Menchaca

Gil Menchaca (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 older article on an actor that is solely sourced to IMDb. Subject does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 20 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.

Hamilton Mitchell

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

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

Unsourced BLP about an actor of dubious notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, though he possibly was a busy actor with a number of minor parts, he doesn't seem to have had numerous major roles to meet
  WP:NACTOR criteria. Sionk (talk) 14:03, 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.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich James

Heinrich James (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)

Actor fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 20 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.

Journal of Spine Surgery (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 the journal's own self-proclaiming of being peer-reviewed, no other sourcing indicating it is. Being from a publisher notorious for producing non-peered reviewed publications, not sure this passes notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I could not find any reliable sources not affiliated with the publishing company, and being listed in PubMed along with tens of thousands of other journals is not an indication of notability (trivial mention only). There is also no impact factor for this journal in this list, which in accordance with
  WP:GNG is also not fulfilled. ComplexRational (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment The editor-in-chief seem an Associate Professor of
  UNSW [13]. But it seem there is not much source to prove the GNG notability of the journal, nor it was cited by many other articles. However, i am not in this field, i am undecided on keep or delete or not. Matthew hk (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete / Redirect back to
  b} 15:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, restore redirect, protect. Peer review is just a process and whether it is any good depends on the editors and reviewers. In the present case, the publisher has a reputation of weak (if any) peer review. However, this is rather irrelevant to the question of notability: journals with good, stringent peer review can still be non-notable. What clinches the deal here is that this journal is not indexed in any selective database and that there are no independent sources. The journal claims to be included in PubMed, which is correct, but that is only an access platform. PubMed includes all journals in MEDLINE (which is a selective database) AND those in PubMedCentral, which includes almost all OA journals in the life sciences (a notable exception being OMICS journals), and therefore is not selective at all. The current journal is in PubMed because as an OA journal it isin PMC, it is not in any of the more discerning databases to which PubMed is the access platform. In short, this journal misses
  WP:GNG by a mile. --Randykitty (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and redirect back to
  talk) 17:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment There's an undeclared COI here (and if the article creator edited as part of his job, undisclosed paid editing, too): the article creator (who is editing under his own name) works for the same institute as the editor-in-chief of the journal. I don't suspect anything nefarious here, just being unfamiliar with WPs rules on COI/PAID, but thought it was worth mentioning. I have warned the editor on his talk page. --Randykitty (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The editor-in-chief, according to the CV in UNSW website and in this wiki article, was Associate Professor Ralph Mobbs, while the article creator, was Timanchoy. I don't object the accusation of Timanchoy is a paid editor, but it seem Timanchoy (may be actually spells as Timan Choy? Tim An Choy? ) is not equal to Ralph Mobbs by common sense on spelling. That user created parallel draft under draft title Draft:Journal of Spine Surgery (JSS) and then it was moved to Draft:Journal of Spine Surgery, as well as turn this article from redirect. The user also created NeuroSpine Surgery Research Group, which Dr. Mobbs is a director of NeuroSpineClinic. It could only suggested that someone is being paid to promote the journal and the clinic/research group, but not enough information for Dr.Mobbs using alias to create wiki articles himself. Matthew hk (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matthew hk - I don't think that Randykitty was insinuating that Mobbs was using an alias. If you go to the page on the Clinic's website (found here), you can see that there is a research assistant by the name of Wen Jie Choy, also known an Timan Choy. Since he works for the organization, there is definitely COI, and one might argue defact paid editing, since he is paid to work for the group. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then it isn't the same thing of the edit-in-chief wrote the wiki article himself, but the wiki article creator had oddly the same name with Dr. Mobbs' co-worker/employee. As well as "institute" is ambiguous, UNSW or Prince of Wales School? So it end up is the clinic. Matthew hk (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Matthew hk, you're misreading my comment. I did not say that the EIC wrote this article under another name. What I said was that the editor who wrote the article works at the same institution as the EIC, as Onel5969 explained. --Randykitty (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete then restore redirect and lock it down. Legacypac (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Dear All, I wish to clarify my position. I was a student of both A/Prof Ralph Mobbs and NSURG. Although I am a research Coordinator, I was not paid by
  Journal of Spine Surgery, yes I admit the journal is new. Hence there is limited indexing and still currently lacks an impact factor. However, given that it has been around for many years, I was told by the editor-in-chief (A/Prof Mobbs) that these are currently in application progress and JSS will soon receive more indexing and an impact factor. This journal is a peer-reviewed journal and nothing dodgy is going behind the scenes. I sincerely hope my explanation clarifies all confusions. Timanchoy 11:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It still

WP:COI. Matthew hk (talk) 16:49, 21 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. Sandstein 13:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toolihalan

Toolihalan (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)

"Toolihalan" gets a passing reference in various sources, including "Toolihalan Road", but no press and no reference to "Toolihalan Village." It fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Please see
  WP:GEOLAND - “Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low.“ We don’t require the same standard of multiple reliable sources for small places as we do for, e.g. actors or companies. If you’re concerned about specific content that isn’t sufficiently well-sourced you’ve tagged them as requiring further citations so we can wait to see if those appear. But there’s no case at all for deleting the entire article.Mccapra (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:GEOLAND. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, for the reasons given above. Alarichall (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I could not agree with
  WP:GNG. DESiegel might want to weigh in.Rhadow (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep listed as a town on the district marriage list. One of the weakest
  WP:V votes I've ever cast, but I'm convinced. Some searches for "Toolihallan" also appear. SportingFlyer T·C 04:36, 21 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.

ZionFelix

ZionFelix (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)

PR or marketing related →Enock4seth ^(talk) 11:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 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.

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of active premier league goalscorers

List of active premier league goalscorers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Typical

BTW the list fundamentally different from List of footballers with 100 or more Premier League goals, which 100 club was defined by media. Matthew hk (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW 2. The correct title should located in List of active Premier League goalscorers. Matthew hk (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – It's an encloypedia for articles of long-term value, not a topical stats source. Jellyman (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – per NOTSTATS: Unencyclopedic and subject to constant changes making it a 'topical' or 'news' entry; which, as noted above, is not what Wikipedia is typically about. Eagleash (talk)
• Delete -
  WP:LISTCRUFT, the related and well-defined list above is far better. Spike 'em (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I don't know why you want to delete it. It is distinguish list, there is no list like this one since all the other lists include the players of all time. If you like List of footballers with 100 or more Premier League goals, I can do similar to this one but expanding it. Sjaatoul (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjaatoul (talk • contribs) 14:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is many guidelines for new user to read. Start from

WP:V may be? Matthew hk (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. –
  Jay 01:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per all deletes above, and WP:N notability is not temporary - a list of active Premier League Goalscorers is continually out dated, hence it is temporary. To keep would mean accepting lists from all years and periods of not only the premier league, but all professional leagues ever. Highest goalscorers over all time, or golden boot winners are notable, but this belongs on a fan cruft page or someone's personal webpage.ClubOranje^T 08:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as LISTCRUFT. GiantSnowman 09:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As this is original research and will always be out of dated each week. That and also the fact that this page doesn't look like it's a professional article also is a big no no.
  talk) 02:35, 19 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.

Amir Khan (Pakistani Anchor Person)

Amir Khan (Pakistani Anchor Person) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non notable. Linked in and youtube aren't suitable sources too. Ajf773 (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just social media and primary sources. Cabayi (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - quick search on the subject hardly yields anything substantial, neither anything properly cited in the article. QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 16:29, 23 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.

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

)

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

Per Wikipedia is not a dictionary; not sure if this can reasonably be expanded into a proper article, though perhaps there's an argument for having a soft redirect to Wiktionary? (Though I see from the edit history that a soft redirect has been undone several times already.) PC78 (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Wiktionary. Mccapra (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Night photography. Qono (talk) 16:31, 19 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 withdrawn, speedy redirect to Shub Kola. No point keeping this open for deletion when there's a better article to redirect it to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shoubkela

Shoubkela (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)

Can't find any non-Wiki-mirror sites confirming this place exists. The NGA GeoNames database is negative for both spelling variants given in the article, and the Persian name as well. No book mentions of either name, not even trivial ones. I know it's not 100% reliable, but there's no Google Maps results either. This has been unsourced since it was created in 2008 by an editor with exactly one edit, and in the complete absence of sources, I'm tempted to believe it was a hoax. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think the problem is the article creator used an odd transliteration into English. Searching the Farsi name it does indeed show up on Google maps as ‘Shoub Kola’, so it’s not a hoax. There are plenty of hits for “شوبکلا” so no doubt it exists. Mccapra (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Shub Kola. فرهنگ2016 (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per فرهنگ2016. Mccapra (talk) 18:53, 17 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.

Avenue Rose

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

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

Article on a non-notable band. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I found an obituary for one of the band members ([14]) but not much else. Fails
  WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 12:28, 19 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.

List of association football players considered the greatest of all time

List of association football players considered the greatest of all time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · of association football players considered the greatest of all time)

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

This article is against all Wikipedia's guideline. In very big short: It is perfect

• Delete, completely arbitrary choice of subject experts, should also include 19th century players, should include players not written about much in English. But all of that would verge into
  WP:SYNTH is more authoritative than those expert-curated ones. —Kusma (t·c) 11:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. Such a pity as a huge amount of effort has gone into this article but it is a case of
  WP:SYN. I would support a new article that chronicled "the most notable lists" of the "Greatest football players of all time" (i.e. only notable lists, and each one reproduced faithfully and kept separate from the others). Such an article would be titled differently as "Lists of association football players considered the greatest of all time", to clarify that even a single highly notable list, could never be considered definitive (it would be a POV-Fork). Britishfinance (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This article should look like: Historical rankings of presidents of the United States; very different title, very different content, and not OR/SYN. Britishfinance (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE - the article is skewed based on how much effort people are going to put into looking for sources, particularly when significant number of primary sources being used are not actually articles, lists, or any significant reliable source but instead isolated tweets with no context (or little). The addition of the "count" of sources is particularly problematic levels of synth as it has been significantly skewed to modern sources. I wouldn't even use that kind of sourcing on their primary articles, preferring actual reliably published material. Koncorde (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on (I don't believe it)
  WP:OSE grounds: we do tend to keep these sort of articles on the flipside, and this one is well-sourced. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_automobiles_considered_the_worst, List of films considered the best, List of films considered the worst, Category:Lists of worsts. SportingFlyer T·C 22:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. There is a significant difference between the articles as presented. The worst cars list in particular is not actually a list as much as a series of entries on multiple vehicles through hiatory and likely would qualify as an actual article. There is no denial that the creation of an article about the subject of Greatest Footballer might exist or should exist, but that a list of footballers (particularly in its current format) is not being met. In addition the comment about "well sourced" for this article must ignore that the significant proportion of sources are twitter, and by people of no significant knowledge or reputation, nor presented in context (it is unclear if they have changed opinion, what date or time etc and requires significant upkeep and maintenance for people's subjective opinions). A few may hold up to scrutiny, most less so.

• A fair point. There aren't many Twitter references - using the find function brings up only eight of over 100 - but the article needs cleanup. I'm in favour of something along the lines of
  WP:TNT, but I want to make the point: even if this gets deleted, I don't think its deletion should preclude someone from trying to write a better article. SportingFlyer T·C 06:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I would have no problem with a future article that chronicled the most notable lists of "the greatest footballers" (they are out there); however this article is not such a list. It fails basic
  WP:SYN for sports. If someone did an article like this on greatest U.S. Presidents, it would get deleted as WP:OR. What this article should look like is this: Historical rankings of presidents of the United States. Britishfinance (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. This gets discussed in pretty much every sport. But tighten up the criteria. Agents and club presidents are hardly ever unbiased, plus there should be a sizable number of supporting votes/opinions (one is definitely not enough). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: We already have this type of article for sport people what you are talking about (see:
  Di Stefano's teammate from South America who is considered by some as better than Pele; Di Stefano get only one notable reference where surprinsgly Eusebio give him better
  reputation than for Pele and Garrincha.

Beyond that this list has been so absurdly buthered by pople who make personal favouritism that it list look like

WP:OSE. Calling this very poor article "sourced" for this subject actually is amusing Dawid2009 (talk) 06:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom as pure opinion piece, no matter how many 'experts' are cited. GiantSnowman 08:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I could see a justification for such an article if it was based on national/international polls/surveys like the film one linked above, but one based largely on the opinions of individual people, often of no great importance (no offence to Santiago Formoso, but he seems to have been a relatively run-of-the-mill player, so I'm not sure why we should give any weight to his opinion of who the greatest player was) isn't sustainable IMO.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article is titled as the players CONSIDERED to be the greatest. By definition it is a recording of opinions. No editor is claiming that any of these players are the greatest. They are merely citing the opinions of others to claim that people consider these players to be the greatest. If taken in that respect, there should be no issue with this list, as it clearly states that it is a list of players who are considered by others to be the greatest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vercors63 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment This article feels more like a

  WP:TNT'ed and replaced with something like this: Historical rankings of presidents of the United States. Britishfinance (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]