Wikipedia : Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 10

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

We've already

WP:ARTIST and that the previous consensus was indeed correct. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article post-date the previous deletion discussion, so this is not a matter of whether the previous consensus was indeed correct but of whether the subject has become notable in the meantime.
Phil Bridger (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep BBC is reputable, so the sources are worthy, and then this is a notable subject. Page should be tagged as a stub and future info can be added.--Nubtrazolacine (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are quite a few RS in the article already. Meets GNG.
talk) 16:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - I have to echo the previously stated sentiments favoring the retention of the article. Capt. Milokan (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It now seems we have a clear consensus. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, firstly per
WP:SIGCOV. SSSB (talk) 19:23, 17 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. T. Canens (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darian Kovacs (professor)

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

Not sufficient evidence that he is notable Sonnetman (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 22:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Weak delete. There's not a lot of great independent and significant sources about him specifically. What's provided in the article is about stuff Kovac is involved with, but don't specifically focus on him; that said, he's still suitably mentioned and quoted in them that if there were more along those lines I'd say he passed GNG. But I can't find much beyond what's there once removing his own written Forbes blogs. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing notability criteria at
WP:GNG as the subject of the article really isn't the subject of any of the references. Ifnord (talk) 22:20, 17 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 redirect to Margot & the Nuclear So and So's. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Edwards (singer/songwriter)

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

This musician fails

WP:GNG. I can't find any info on songs that made charts. Tinton5 (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tinton5 (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Margot & the Nuclear So and So's. No significant RS references outside of his role in that band. He does have an individual All Music bio that references his two solo releases, but otherwise the bio mostly is about his band. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
WP:MUSICBIO says, "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band" - Epinoia (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect as above and include a paragraph about his solo albums referenced to his AllMusic bio. This article does a poor job of establishing any independent notability as it is wholely about the group, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:45, 15 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Alosio

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

Fails

WP:BEFORE search that shows he meets notability criteria. This article was created and very largely editied by users claiming (probably truthfully) to be the subject of the article. The only reference is IMDB and social media. Clearly a vanity page. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 10 May 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? 22:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are several passing mentions in less than reliable sources (e.g. Daily Mail) to the effect of "Ryan Alosio, the voice actor for" X video game... GNG fail as there is no in-depth coverage.
talk) 23:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment the article makes a number of unsubstantiated claims about Alosio as an artists that -should- be easy to verify: a gallery-shown and sold abstract painter (OK, well, which gallery?, sold to whom?), work featured in: Rizzoli International's Modern Americana (https://www.rizzoliusa.com/book/9780847862849/), Modern Magazine (http://modernmag.com/), The New York Times Magazine (https://www.nytimes.com/section/magazine), The London Sunday Times (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/) Style Magazine (not sure which style magazine is meant here) I think that means he may have contributed photographs, because he's clearly not one of the subjects of Modern Americana (furniture designers who worked between 1940 and 1990). He's too young) As for the other sources, I found nothing. Not a single mention in any of those sources. No gallery seems to represent him. The only exhibition I found a mention of is the 2016 “Crime on Canvas” exhibit at Life Is Beautiful Music & Art Festival, but his work as an artist has not been critically assessed, reviewed or otherwise noted. Vexations (talk) 21:07, 11 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 redirect to Isotopes of zinc. As noted by the last comment, the text is basically a copyright violation from this source, so we cannot really merge. I'll clean the page history Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zinc-68

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

This isotope appears to fail

WP:IRI would leave no non-trivial content in this article. Hence, I propose a redirect to Isotopes of zinc in the same format as redirects for other non-notable isotopes. ComplexRational (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ComplexRational (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Not independently notable but the isotopes article could mention which isotopes have applications. Reywas92^Talk 19:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge per nom, with whose arguments I agree. Most isotopes (especially stable isotopes) aren't independently notable, and this is one of them. Narky Blert (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without merge as originally proposed - The only thing on the entire page that is referenced is the fact that it is an isotope of zinc, and those references are to a company's catalog entry, and a 404 error page. As per nom, the remainder of the text deals with zinc in general and not specifically Zn68, except for the sentence: "Zinc-68 is considered non-toxic in healthy doses but can cause nausea if taken in excess" which as a health claim should not be said without a MEDRS citation. While there are some details in the infobox not on the target page it is likewise uncited and does not fit with the layout of that page. In other words, there is nothing to merge that isn't more trouble than it's worth (that is not to say the Isotopes of zinc page couldn't use some work, but that work wouldn't be appreciably furthered by what little could be added from this page). Agricolae (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with merge, the isotope within itself is not notable, while the category it is a part of most certainly is. Would like to keep some of the content on the current page however, even if it would be redirected in the end.
talk) 02:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
- What specific content would that be, that is 1) sourced, 2) relevant to the target page and 3) not already on the target page? I'm not seeing any. Agricolae (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - 'Redirect and merge' just means 'check before blanking'. Narky Blert (talk) 06:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to isotopes of zinc; I'm not seeing any content that needs to be merged. XOR'easter (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and no merge, as the content looks like a copyvio/close paraphrase of the American Elements Zinc-68 Metal Isotope page. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:08, 15 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 no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. This AfD is a disaster on wheels and should be linked as an example at

WP:TLDR. That said, I have read it through, twice in detail and skimmed a third time. Discounting at least one keep as very possibly a sock and the argument being outside PAG it is clear that there is nothing close to a consensus to keep. While the discussion appeared to be trending towards deletion I am not satisfied that a sufficient consensus to that end has been established. I very rarely relist discussions more than twice and this one has already become far too unwieldy. If someone chooses to renominate this I would encourage a notice be posted at the top of the AfD reminding editors to keep their comments on topic, cite WP:PAG where possible, do not keep repeating points already made, and for the love of G--, BE BRIEF. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Electric Brain

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

Fairly obscure UK video game magazine from 1989 to 1993. Fails

WP:GNG. Probably should not be a subject on Wikipedia, but it could be useful for a source. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

Week keep-it might need more sources I believe or more info. It might be worth a look or a redirect to something else if not. (Though I wouldn't be opposed to delete either). ~~Wgolf (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)~~, ~~changed to delete-unless if good redirect can be found. Just might not be notable enough. Wgolf (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)~~ Changing back to keep as there are sources. Wgolf (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It currently has zero RS. One is just the ISSN page listing, and the other is a fan site. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I meant if it can find sources. On another note-it's not even on the List of video game magazines (To be fair it only lists ones with articles though), I might just change this to delete upon looking further. Wgolf (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can only find fansites and forums. And considering it's obscurity and short run, that's likely all you'll find. Magazines themselves often don't get talked about. That's why most of these old mags should be seen as sources rather than subjects for Wikipedia. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually changing my vote to delete, unless if someone can find a place it can be redirected.Wgolf (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the author of the

talk) 16:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

Nothing personal, just noticing it doesn't have coverage in third party sources. I have noticed myself that many gaming mags are likely not notable and probably should either be deleted or redirected to their publisher pages. I'll have to go through them and I'm putting that off right now. I just decided to nominate this one and GameGo! seemed to be the most blatant, as they were super obscure. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for deletion I have addressed: short run (not true in comparison to some others), obscure (not if you talk to somebody who was around in the UK at the time, see videos reference), no believable source (there are scans available, publisher still exists, advertisers still exist), lack of sources/references (I have added more, plus wiki cross-references), not in list of video game magazines (it now is). What are your current thoughts? (GameGO! as one issue and a single PDF should go, I concur)

talk) 14:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

I vote keep, on the basis that it had a run of at least 35 issues that I know of, and I own all the issues. The magazine was produced at a time when there was poor coverage of console systems and games within the mainstream magazines and so there is a history of games reviews that don't exist in printed form elsewhere. The magazine is of high interest to collectors, in the same way that a rare video game would be sought after. I would be happy to contribute value that helps this magazine earn it's place Uchet67 (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC) — Uchet67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It doesn't matter if it' interest to collectors or not, what matters is if it passes

WP:GNG by having third party coverage. Which it lacks. It's of interest to niche audiences. Thus it should not be on WP. If you want to create a fan wiki for lost magazines or gamer mags, then that content can go there. But not here. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

I vote keep because the current video games climate for historic preservation covers not only ‘retro’ video game files, but all other media as well. Many publications/fanzines have already been lost, either through original servers shutting down, fan sites being forgotten or just lack of knowledge leading to disinformation.

Again, literally all that matters is sources. Does it have any? It doesn't. If it doesn't, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-thanks to the new info, I want to change my vote back to keep like I had originally. Wgolf (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What "new info"? There have been zero

WP:RS posted showing notability of this magazine. That is ALL that matters. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

and others (as Console Ma'zine or Console Magazine), and mentioned (as Electric Brain) in N-Force all reliable, verifiable, published sources of years gone by. Age matters I feel this is the main problem we have, this magazine was 25 years ago, pre-internet - written letters - fanzines - pen pals - shopping with your gran on a Saturday, so finding information about it is slower and more difficult than I would like. I would also like to ask for understanding that the article is being edited frequently, as more information comes to light. It is not a dead article that has been sat unedited and unloved on Wikipedia. About your appraisal of 8 sources (there are now more than double that)

Comment - There seems to be some confusion over this debate. A lot of people are commenting why they think that this topic is important, but the only issue that matters is how much this magazine has been covered in third party reliable sources. Topics can be important to niche groups, while not being notable enough for Wikipedia. This is where fan projects, fan wikis, and other things come into play. This is a fine topic for one of those, just not here. Let's examine the sources for this page:

1. Videogameden. - Nice website, but it's not a
WP:RS
. Fan site.
2. "Electric Brain Magazine". Archive.org - Citing the magazine itself. Not proof of notability.
3. anime-nostalgia-facility.blogspot.com - Fan blog.
4. portal.issn.org - Just the ISSN listing, which lists literally everything. Not proof of notability.
5. youtube.com/watch?v=7CcSDASu1iA - Video with 68 views. Self published and not RS.
6. magazinesfromthepast.fandom.com - Fan Wiki
7. neogaf.com - Thread on a fan forum.
8. digitiser2000.com/ - Fan blog.

Conclusion: Not a single RS has been found to demonstrate the notability of this magazine. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've just educated myself and read the page about

WP:RS, and now that I am aware of what they are I disagree with your appraisal. Also, Notability is a different ask than that of Reliable Sources so I am keen to not confuse those two. Definition of source, the piece of work itself (the magazine) which we have scans and physical copies of. The creator of the work (we know about the staff, some still around and contactable), the publisher (they are still around, I am in contact with them). Definition of published media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist (both of these are true for Electric Brain). I just added many more sources from scans of old printed magazines, where it was mentioned (as PC Engine Fanatics) in The Games Machine, in New Computer Express

6 - is an trusted archive of staff lists of magazines.

8 - is the current presence of Digitiser, the advertiser on the back of EB issues 33 through 35, you can read at the reference link a story of how they had to pay "real money" to advertise in Electric Brain.

Right now, there are a bunch of votes to keep, and your delete vote. I'll continue to edit and add to the article as I have been. Hopefully the newly uncovered printed sources are enough for you to reverse your delete vote?

talk) 22:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

You've added more citations, but it's the same pattern: not a single RS among them. More forum posts, fan blogs, and trivial references. Also, these debate discussions are not votes, but attempts to find a consensus through reference to Wikipedia policy. Unless RS can be found, this magazine fails

WP:GNG. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

I disagree that there are no RS. That's all I'll say on the mater, good day to you. Would like to request

talk) 10:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

You seem very confused about

WP:RS. Super Play is a RS, and it has one profile on GAP, the successor magazine. And I believe it did a profile on Electric Brain as well. However, these two short profiles are not enough to establish notability. The rest of the references are trivial or not reliable. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

I feel you're missing the point. The point about

talk) 10:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

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

Talk: Contribs) 18:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Delete Article reads like a CV and doesn't explain why this fanzine is notable in the first place. Excessive linking to other articles therein doesn't change that, nor does a staff writer having moved on to write for other video game publications. Any attempt to establish notability is steeped in puffery ("Possibly the biggest coup..."), unsourced namedropping (
^{• whaddya want? •} 21:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Per Nom. I would like to see a
Mattsephton: -- with all due respect you might want to restudy on sources including "significant coverage", Wikipedia:Party and person and Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources
and hope to get a video magazine genre fan for a closer. A source that is totally acceptable for content may not be acceptable at all towards notability and this is what I see. I like the layout of the article but there are some problems.
1)- The source assessment above is correct and the additions do appear to follow suit.

2)- The clear lack of reliable sources means this has to be considered from a fan base point of view as
"but we are fans and like it"
.

3)- Consensus arrived by not voting is not generally the same as a head count. A plus would be a favorable closer that might agree with the "climate for historic preservation" part or give extra consideration to the "preferences of the participants". If that is not considered then a collection of lessor references (multiple insignificant sources) might be considered collectively.

Please note: WP:Notability (being "Worthy of note) is determined by sources. Reasoning of "climate for historic preservation", it had "a run of at least 35 issues", "The magazine is of high interest to collectors", and my personal favorite "keep as there are sources" (any might just do) are secondary to availability of reliable independent sourcing. The main issue is that "IF" the article survives this AFD it may still be in danger of being nominated again unless it can be properly sourced.

Second note: A negative is that one editor has a total of one contribution and another has a total of four. This will only bring suspicion as both also have similar styles of !voting and very likely be discounted. The result is actually one !vote stating there are sufficient sources and three from established editors (one including a review of sources) stating notability is lacking. If this goes against a keep maybe it can be requested to userfy or redirect somewhere? Otr500 (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of third party reliable sources, they have a short overview of GAP and Electric Brain magazines in Super Play magazine that's only three short paragraphs. That's a start, but a single tiny article is nowhere near enough to establish notability. They need significant coverage. The other references to game mags are simply pointing to short listings that mention that the magazine is available for purchase. These aren't articles, rather these are just listings and short ads. That's a MASSIVE stretch. Considering this was a tiny fanzine which only part way through the run got a publisher and transitioned into a more standard game magazine, this should not be shocking. Fanzines by their nature are pretty under-ground. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, very useful discussion.

talk) 21:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

@

talk) 12:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Keep per
talk) 21:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This is a duplicate "keep" !vote. Please see: "I vote keep" at 11:26 am, 25 April 2019 above. Otr500 (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also politely ask why, say,

talk) 19:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Short version is: maybe it should?

Long version: I've been actually thinking that a large chunk of gaming mags aren't notable, and should either be deleted or redirected to their publisher page. If you were to mass throw them all into AFD, I think maybe no more than 50% would survive. Thing is though, some of them are notable, and it's difficult at first glance to see which are notable and which aren't since they all have low amount of sources. It would take some time to research and to sort through them, and that's a bit of a pain and I have enough on my plate. Instead, I sent what I felt was the most obvious

low hanging fruit, this and GameGO! to AFD, since I felt it was pretty uncontroversial. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Super Play is hanging on by a thread because despite the lousy sourcing in the article itself, the magazine got a bit of viable third-party publicity upon their brief 2017 revival, and Kotaku used a graphic from one issue for a 2012 feature about the high prices of SNES games. That's pretty much it, but if you want to compare the two, it's miles ahead of Electric Brain in terms of third-party coverage.

^{• whaddya want? •} 00:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Even If it wasn’t ahead that would be a case for deleting Super Play and not a case for keeping this article.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @

talk) 13:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

The NL article brings it to two single articles, so that's still not enough. A tiny Super Play article, and a NL article mostly focusing on Shiggy. Also, reading the comments in the NL page, it says the interview was taken from Famitsu, and that Electric Brain merely translated it without giving credit. Which explains why some minor fanzine has an interview with someone like him. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Brain "merely" translated it? Really? Can I reiterate that this was 1992, 20 years before the next time this interview was to be seen in English, and 24 years before the interview was seen in full in English. And this is an interview that has - this very month - been reprinted by Famitsu in Japan as one of the most important interviews of the last 30 years (their words). To trivialise this fact shows a fair amount of disrespect, so I'd like to ask again if you could be a bit more open minded. Thank you. Also, I've mentioned many times that the raison d'être of Electric Brain and its contemporaries like

talk) 12:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

No one has a "vendetta" against this magazine. Rather, you're betting all your horses and then some on the longevity of a single interview to prove the article's notablility, which is still lacking due to no

^{• whaddya want? •} 18:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Correction, both

WP:RS for video games. The issue is that these are brief and tiny articles and don't amount to substantial coverage. One tiny Super Play article, and one NL article that spends one sentence on the fanzine are not significant coverage. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

@

talk) 11:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Keep. Appears to be well sourced and notable given the age. If this magazine had run from 2013-2017 instead of 89-93, no doubt there would many more online sources and we probably wouldn't be having this debate. ed g2s • talk 15:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Check the page and sources. The author is

WP:REFBOMBing

the page, adding refs for superficial and trivial mentions. A lot of the page is fluff and padding. In terms of sources that actually mention Electric Brain, there's just Super Play and Nintendo Life. That's way too little and brief. There's also no exception to notability for old print sources. There is nothing stopping gaming magazines from talking about this fanzine, and indeed Super Play did just that. Why didn't others? Remember, this was an underground fanzine with low readership and was made via photocopying. Only 3 issues were publisehd with a proper publisher in like stores.

Let's take a look for example at NL's coverage of Electric Brain vs Super Play. Superplay got a 3 page retrospective going over its history, while Electric Brain got one news article that has 1 sentence devoted to the fanzine. The sort of sources we're looking for are more like NL's in depth retrospective. Are there any more sources of that kind of in depth coverage for this magazine? Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion that "Only 3 issues were publisehd with a proper publisher in like stores."(sic) is demonstrably incorrect/false: check the British Library reference.

You say "low readership" but offer no proof. If you're aware of circulation numbers please add them to the article.

"And was made via photocopying" is not wholly true, particularly when talking about Electric Brain and not any of its earlier incarnations. We have the publisher and ISSN for part of the run.

I'm adding references only for things that need citations - no more and, obviously, no less.

Magazines don't generally go around talking about their competitors so the fact Super Play even mentioned Electric Brain at all is an oddity.

You demand sources. I add them. Then you say they are not good enough? That's your personal opinion, I disagree with that vehemently.

Super Play received a 3 page feature at the time it had a revival issue printed. Before that it had much less coverage, naturally.

talk) 10:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Having spent a large proportion of my life in the field of video games and video game writing, I'd argue that without Electric Brain, and in particular its staff writer Jason Brookes, Super Play would not have been as successful and influential as it was, nor made the lasting impact that it did. In this regard, Electric Brain could be considered a prototype for Jason Brookes' later input into Super Play. That would be significant impact in my opinion.

Delete - the magazine does not meet
WP:NPERIODICAL: made no significant impact in its field, did not receive a notable award or honor at a national or international level, was not the proceedings of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association, and has not had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works - therefore, unambiguous delete - Epinoia (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Given that digital versions of Electric Brain are only now becoming available, new scans are uploaded frequently, citations will surely come and the Nintendo Life feature is the first example of this. The same would be expected of other recently introduced publications or any new information.

As

talk) 15:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Researching obscure fanzines and gaming history can be a laudable goal, but that's not the goal of Wikipedia. This is what fansites, and fan wikis are for. This is niche info. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that, over and over. It makes no sense and shows real lack of understanding of what this article is even about. It's not obscure and it's a magazine with an ISSN. If you're not from the UK, you might not understand this, that's fine. Perhaps you had not even been born when his magazine was printed, that's also fine. But to say this doesn't belong on Wikipedia without addressing the comment you're replying to is really not adding anything useful to this discussion. I hear your point, no need to keep restating it. It would be more productive for you to address the comment you're replying to.

talk) 13:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

For all of the blue-in-the-face insistence that EB is so influential like it's some poor man's EGM, at the end of the day it's a fanzine that had a short shelf life due to, well, low readership. There's next to no third-party coverage on just a Google search alone, and pretty much anything can be added to archive.org. The Nintendo Life piece with Jason Brookes cited in the article makes no mention of Electric Brain at all, so anyone unfamiliar with EB is not going to automatically correlate the two. The writers didn't get their foot in the door of other publications solely on the basis of their work for EB, which was more or less a stepping stone. Gaming fanzines advertising in other gaming magazines also means jack in terms of notability because that was the norm in the pre-internet days.

^{• whaddya want? •} 07:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Again, false information or personal opinion with no facts to back it up, or ignoring relevant cites.

1. "fanzine"? it was a printed, retail magazine with ISSN record, at least for the part of its run this article is about.

2. "short shelf life"? it ran for 35 issues over 4 calendar years. this is not short.

3. "low readership"? ^[citation needed]. if you are aware of circulation numbers, please add them to the article.

4. "so anyone unfamiliar with EB is not going to automatically correlate [to Super Play]" if they've read the preceding sentence in this article before they follow the reference that will know exactly the relationship.

5. "writers didn't get their foot in the door of other publications solely on the basis of their work for EB"? You have no proof of this. I read it as implied in the Super Play retrospective feature.

6. "like it's some poor man's EGM"? I've made no reference to EGM, and given that I'm not from the USA I have never read an issue of that publication so have no idea about it other than to have heard its name. Similarly, most people from the USA will have never heard or read an issue of Electric Brain at the time it was printed and in circulation. Finally, when you are deleting things from the article, or adding reliable sources or peacock please note the specific references or words that are problematic so they're easy to locate and resolve.

talk) 12:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

Mattsephton

: There has been a reprieve. Please use this time to possibly neutrally advertise at relevant places as this relisting is "to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus". Above you curtly dismissed an editors comments and I would refrain from doing that. Also, you use the wording "Again, false information or personal opinion with no facts to back it up, or ignoring relevant cites". All consensus building hinges on the "opinions" of the editors giving comments hopefully based on policies, guidelines, and even community backed essays, so you disagreeing might not mean an editor has "intent to deceive".

There are at least two editors that edit in the video gaming field. I take this into account when considering comments with substance according to the "rules" (interpretation) when I am reviewing. I don't consider ANY comments that include Appears to be well sourced, even or especially, if offered by an admin, and give little thought to non-policy based SPA comments. Those types of comments are directly counter to what not to state in an AFD and shows what I consider to be trivial comments. Some of us take the time to check individual links as apposed to "counting sources" so as long as I see reviews in earnest I will be swayed more by those editors comments. The one editor you summarily dismissed took the time to list (advertise) the discussion and it has been relisted twice. This means there is extreme fairness going on so PLEASE

civility

.

I started my "gaming" on a Commodore (64 and 128) and when I went into PC's I progressed from the 8088, 80286, 80386, and up. My first "powerful" PC had an amazingly fast turbo speed button of 12 Mhz. I still have gaming consoles and games so could not be considered against the gaming world. I would offer the same about those editors that work in the subject area especially when you cursor over their user name and it is prominent they do so and they are established editors.

I am somewhat perplexed concerning your comments about WP:DEFUNCTNEWS. You stated, "Many periodicals are notably influential without being the subject of secondary sources", and I read, "It is possible for a periodical to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Verifiability.". I am all about history and certainly obtaining knowledge so the "defunct" part to me would be historical value.

When or if you find a source that might signify notability share it here for opinions instead of just "adding it" and then requesting others to re-review. This will lesson the fact that an editor will have to view diff's to see the edit and give a chance for input (reliability) that will stop assertions of refbombing. Just some thoughts.

If there is not

providing such sources. Otr500 (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Thank you for the level headed, neautrally-positioned discussion.

My

WP:DEFUNCTNEWS

quote was from the top of that page, section titled This page in a nutshell.

I will add the next source I find here for discussion as you recommend; we appear to be roughly the same age and have the same values so I appreciate your advice and recommendations on this.

My aim here is to point out any AfD discussion that is not based on citable fact, and I will continue to do so.

Aside: I thought this was the 3rd relist (which as I'm sure you know is not advised) but perhaps it is only the 2nd relist and the original AfD does not count towards the relist tally? This is my first AfD so... I really don't know which it is.

talk) 20:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

In the meantime, please quit removing the article tags atop the page until these issues have been explicitly addressed. Just one example of

^{• whaddya want? •} 07:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Thanks for quoting a specific example - I've addressed it. In the past I also addressed specific citation links that you had issue with and took the time to mark individually. I'll address every specific example that is raised. Globally tagging a page isn't much help as I'm sure you can understand. Cheers!

talk) 08:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

How about a compromise @

talk) 14:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

: I have been involved in more than a few AFD's. If you are around my age then welcome to "old[er] age". My only complaint is that I am living in my "age of retiring gunslinger" period. I strive to be "nicer" in a growing older age but sometimes this "being nice" is confused with or perceived as a weakness. That is generally a fundamental error as I am neither weak nor timid if provoked so continually must check myself. I was born before the first artificial satellite was launched and when commercial jet liners were in their infancy. Considering the cool cars of the era at least the round wheel was invented.

Reply: @

Mattsephton

WP:DEFUNCTNEWS is a section and particular subject "Non-contemporary periodicals". The quote you used is actually pretty clear: "Many periodicals are notably influential". While not named this was mentioned by user Harizotoh9 at the beginning of the AFD, "Probably should not be a subject on Wikipedia, but it could be useful for a source.", and this is echoed by, "It is possible for a periodical to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject.", This clearly defines a difference between "notability" and "notably influential". Hopefully some acceptable in-dept coverage can be located.

It is a good idea to address issues (perceived or not) resulting in a tag before removal especially if there is an accurate edit summary or talk page mention. Those that perform maintenance can get riled up if an editor just arbitrarily removes tags and can get an admin involved. I do remove what I consider vague and long term (career) tags but leave an edit summary that if the issues do not seem to be resolved please be more specific. Otr500 (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Old cars are the coolest cars, no doubt about it. My first car was a 1972 FIAT 500, marginally older than myself. Of course I bought it long after it was new, at a time it was already considered vintage. Cheaper road tax! Anyway, I digress. As for the tags, I have not been arbitrarily removing them, but rather addressing specific tags and marked targets in the body contents. Once all of these had been addressed I removed the tags, only to see the tags, plus more new ones, were added back without any further information. This seems arbitrary and unfair. I have left more detailed edit summaries for the most recent edits because of this. A little bird told me a recent book quoted Electric Brain so I'm trying to get hold of a copy. Exciting!

talk) 21:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Delete - I've gone through all the citations, and they're all either
MrOllie (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Any thoughts on how this applies to the Non-contemporary periodicals section of
talk) 13:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
It hasn't been widely written about, as that section suggests should be considered. Generally, topic specific notability guides don't override the
MrOllie (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
that it needs proof.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs
)
Still waiting for the book to arrive. I'm also trying to track down archive TV footage of a feature about Electric Brain that was aired on
talk) 09:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for now. The
WP:GNG. No prejudice to later recreation if sources are later identified to meet the GNG. --Izno (talk) 18:03, 16 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. Fenix down (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Phillips

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

Fails

WP:GNG. Yet to make his senior debut JMHamo (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. JMHamo (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. --MrClog (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, as the article fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. INeedSupport ^:3 17:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. A clear case of
WP:TOOSOON. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, Fails notability and
WP:NFOOTBALL, Alex-h (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Not notable - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:33, 17 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Wild Rings

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

Just like

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable. --MrClog (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Month Keep we are giving sources. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Jovanmilic97 Okay, a month keep is you keep it for a month Benjaminkirsc (talk) 10:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Jovanmilic97 in fact maybe it should be Delete. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

There's no such thing as a month keep. Either there are sources, or there isn't. They don't neccesarily need to be in the article, the subject is either notable or not, not the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete - With this being a Japanese release, it's possible there is some Jap print/internet sources out there which can point towards notability. Found nothing in English sources, however. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - according to
WP:NVIDEOGAMES, "A video game is appropriate for an article if it has been the subject of significant commentary or analysis in published sources that are independent of the game developer."- this game has not won any awards or achieved any notability - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Avoid citing an essay as the primary justification in a deletion discussion. Citing the
WP:GNG would be just as appropriate in this context. --Izno (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. fails
WP:GNG- -MA Javadi (talk) 17:41, 17 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Incredible Origins of the Onyx Sun

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

A self published book of dubious notability. Despite the claim in the opening line, it did not, in fact, actually win any awards. It was, instead, just a runner up in two, fairly non-notable, awards. I have not been able to find any reviews from reliable sources on the book, as well. The article says that Publishers Weekly created a review of it, and though that review seems to be now unavailable, the entirely of it is included in the article, which consists only of a short paragraph. Searching for any other sources brings up nothing but its pages on online marketplaces or listings on pages such as Goodreads. Rorshacma (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. --MrClog (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, found a small Midwest Book Review review (under "The Fantasy/SciFi Shelf" here), unable to find the PW review, nor here (doesn't mean there isn't a review), doesn't appear to be widely known: library holdings of one, so more is needed for notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet
WP:NBOOK which requires appearances in two or more non-trivial sources, so one brief write-up in Publishers Weekly does not establish notability - and has not "won a major literary award." - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Fails
WP:NOTPROMOTION grounds, too. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:35, 17 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. Fenix down (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Varga

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

Fails

WP:GNG (no significant coverage). Leviv ich 16:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 16:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 16:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 16:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 16:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 16:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 16:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Does not pass NFOOTY's yardstick. Fails GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted by others, this player does not appear to meet notability criteria establish at
WP:NFOOTY. TimBuck2 (talk) 15:02, 17 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) INeedSupport ^:3 20:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We Beat the Street

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

Fails

WP:GNG as it does not have significant coverage. The only source is the book itself, which is a primary source. INeedSupport ^:3 16:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per
WP:NBOOK#1. The book has received a bunch of reviews, some of which I added to the article. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 17:11, 11 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 redirect to Marketing automation. Clear consensus against retaining this as a standalone article. Anyone interested in merging some content can retrieve it from the page history. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise marketing management

AfDs for this article:

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

This was deleted at AfD, then brought to deletion review. I'm listing this here as a result of that review. This is purely an administrative action on my part; I am neutral. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 15:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Haven't we already discussed this multiple times? I thought the consensus was it was a violation of WP:NEOLOGISM. In any case I don't see how it is a material benefit to WP. Skirts⁸⁹ 19:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NEOLOGISM is not totally clear and unambiguous given the previous AfD's for EMM and MOM which unfortunately were subject to heavy disruption. I also don't believe you participated in the previous AfD for EMM ( but I stand to be corrected if necessary). I intend to repeat my nom. for the previous AfD as a !vote when I can carefully prepare it. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Two textbooks on the subject are cited in the article, so this is obviously not a made up neologism. No material benefit is not a policy based reason for deletion. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (edit conflict) A significant concern in the previous AfD was the descision at
Enterprise marketing management (EMM) during the AfD of EMM but without notification of the result being brought to EMM AfD for discussion.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@RoySmith I know your willing to userify MOM but simply refunding the MOM redirect (incl history) would I feel be useful without causing any harm as far as I can see. It would merely rollback to status-quo as it was the the point of termination of the previous EMM AfD. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marketing automation, which describes the category of software that includes "enterprise marketing management" software. Search Engine Marketing, which is cited in the nominated article, defines enterprise marketing management as "Automated marketing". It would also be appropriate to add a {{Redirect}} disambiguation hatnote to Marketing management after the article is redirected. — Newslinger talk 11:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to
WP:ATD. "Keep" would be fine, too, as there is demonstrated notability, but a merge to provide context for the stub is a reasonable compromise. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: (Bringing forward my nom. at previous EMM AfD as a !vote): Marketing WP:NEOLOGISM that the community seems to indicate it does not wish to accommodate.. I confess reviewing the prior AfD's/DRV's for EMM and MOM with the lack of support explicit support for this reasoning together with the MOM Afd redirect result I have some lack of total confidence that my argument is in fact the community view. However the EMM closer on his (archived) talk page did state the close was made solely on DJM's points related to neologism and point of view and DGG's point related to duplicativness. I am minded the arguments above for a merge/redirect to
WP:SURPRISE of a redirect of EMM there, albeit fixable by creation of a small suitable section in MA. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I don't see the need to redirect or merge, there isn't much to merge, and it isn't likely that anyone would use this exact phrase to search, and if they did, marketing management would show up anyway. This is essentially marketing management with the word "enterprise" tacked on. WP:NEOLOGISM, aka buzzword. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect anywhere mentioned by another user. Deleting permanently is not the right way to go, especially considering it was relisted here at AfD due to issues with the first deletion. Retaining edit history may be useful, and
^(talk) ^(contribs) 05:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails on
WP:NEOLOGISM grounds. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:33, 17 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marisol Grondin

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

I see refs to a zumba class she runs, but I don’t see multiple refs from reliable, independent sources attesting to her notability. Mccapra (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to fail GNG. CobaltBlue101 (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 15:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Comments. Info 07, where the two references appeared, seems to be a reliable source. At the time the article were published, it and the affiliated newspapers were owned by Transcontinental (company), a large Canadian newspaper publisher and printer. The corresponding article in the French Wikipedia at fr:Marisol Grondin has been deleted for not being notable by French Wikipedia standards. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately as there is no sign of notable music albums or singles, no indication of passing one of the criteria of
WP:TOOSOON and she may become notable in the future with a hit album or songs, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:41, 15 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 resolved. The disambiguation has been reformatted into a list. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese apple

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

These are examples of apples that have originated in Japan, not apples that are known as "Japanese apple". None of the articles show "Japanese apple" as valid alternative names, so all entries fail

WP:DABMENTION as well. For example, Akane has a few synonyms per [1], including Prime Red, Primerouge, Tohoku, Tohoku No.3, Tokyo Rose. Searching that site for "Japanese" or Japanese apple" gives no results. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

It doesn't work as a set index either. Per the guideline (my emphasis added) A set index article (SIA) is a list article about a set of items of a specific type that also share the same (or similar) name. If nothing is named "Japanese apple", you can't have an index saying otherwise either. As an example to your counterexample,

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 14:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree now that I see it that this doesn't quite work as a disambiguation page, but it could be rewritten as a
set index article; see, for example, Asian pear or Chinese orange. I was hoping to find one that was better developed than this but there are 1,559 pages in Category:Set indices on plant common names and I'm not going to spend all day going through them. There's some evidence that "Japanese apples" are a sort of common unofficial name or categorization for several varieties of apple, for example [2] [3] [4] [5] (I am aware that some of these are not reliable sources and they're not meant to be, they're just demonstrating common usage. If your reply to this is all about source reliability, keep it to yourself.) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

reserve the title for something of that sort. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Keep. My first AFD for something I've made; exciting! This was written as a response to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 7#Apple (Japan). I will hammer this out when I get home based on the above feedback. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – probably should be expanded into an article about Japanese apples. It could also be a list of Japanese apples. "Dab" and "set index" are beyond my level of competence, but I did a quick search and found lots of sources referring to these apples as Japanese apples (though, like Ivan's list, not all of these are RSes, but that's not the point): [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Leviv ich 15:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any apple from Japan can be called "Japanese apple" as a descriptor of what the apple is, but that is separate from an apple having the name "Japanese apple" (which is what dabs and SIAs cover). I agree with you that the way to cover this group of apple cultivars would be with an article of the sort. A

stand-alone list should have more than three entries, but I'm sure a list of "Japanese apples" can be included in such an article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

@Tavix: I just made the page into this before rolling back my edits. Would a list of Japanese apple cultivars be a more acceptable scope? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: I would be fine with that. Thanks for the work you put into it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: Okay, I moved the page to List of Japanese apple cultivars and applied the appropriate rcats to Japanese apple (ie. Page move, From a list topic, {{R with possibilities}}, etc.). Also it didn't take much to make this list once I found the other entries which was really thanks to this AFD –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:18, 10 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dike Eddleman Athlete of the Year

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

Non-notable award - shockingly little coverage of any kind (doing a search for "Dike Eddleman Athlete of the Year" with quotes only comes up with 60 unique Google results) and not the kind of RS that would support LISTN. This is not even necessarily notable for the individual athletes either - in the well researched GA Dick Butkus this award isn't even mentioned for him. It's a gorgeous table but given its size I don't know that there is a good merge target for it either. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 14:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 14:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, plus an encouragement to the initial editor to create equally beautiful tables for slightly less obscure awards. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the award is not mentioned on the University of Illinois website - I would recommend a Redirect, but the award is not mentioned in any of the University of Illinois campus articles - does not meet
WP:GNG - has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 04:14, 15 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 redirect to James Hadley Chase. Tone 16:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly for Cash

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

Article doesn't meet any of the 5 criteria at

WP:NBOOK. MrClog (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
NBOOK. No reason not to redirect. MarginalCost (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to James Hadley Chase. In general I would expect something from a notable author at this time to be notable but I'm finding a complete lack of coverage beyond an advertisement in the Sydney Herald. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
WP:BOOKCRIT - therefore, redirect - Epinoia (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect per above and keep the categories, which are useful search tools. Narky Blert (talk) 10:10, 17 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AzireVPN

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

This hasn't been prodded before, but I think this is borderline enough to merit a discussion in either case. I can't find any in-depth review outside torrentfreak entry (https://torrentfreak.com/review/azirevpn-reviews/]) but while I think reliable, TF does list pretty much every VPN. And a single non-promotional review is not sufficient for

WP:GNG. Can anyone find any other decent sources for this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are plenty of hits on Google News but I am unsure of their reliability. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 15:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've wikilinked the article back to WireGuard where there is a substansive review among the references. I'd also note the AfD notice is not at the top of the page where I think I read its meant to be so might be missible by people.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just a VPN.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:39, 13 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

NaFIRS

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

Fails

WP:PRIMARY and not sufficient to establish notability of this. At best, a soft delete and merge to Distribution network operator or another better target if found could be considered. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: *Merge: To
Sussex Declaration BBC news snippet fame for an hour and it gives me some inspiration. On dePROD I noted Ofgen reference, Infrastructure Asset Management with Power System Applications isbn: 978-1498708678, Handbook of Reliability Engineering isbn:1852338415, Control and Automation of Electrical Power Distribution Systems isbn: 1351837354 but I can't remember for the life of me their content at the moment. But I feel a merging humming in the wires.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC) per nom.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:59, 17 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bullen

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

He is IT coordinator for the Illinois State Library, which we do not even have an article for. And he has written two books. Likely that this fails

WP:NACADEMIC. Edwardx (talk) 09:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 10:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 10:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 10:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Delete. Fails
WP:NBIO as far as I can tell. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom and above comments. --Tataral (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see where either
WP:NAUTHOR is met. Papaursa (talk) 23:08, 14 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. Tone 16:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Nath Kak

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails

WP:NAUTHOR. ∯WBG^converse 08:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 08:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 08:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/retitle. Sources are about the book, not him. Perhaps his book is notable, and the content of this article could be salvaged by rewriting it into an article about the book, not its author? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, can you list the reviews? ∯WBG^converse 13:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 reviews are on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I just added 2 book review, one from The Hindu, the other published in a small literary journal years after the book was published. This sort of retrospective, literary review is a strong indicator of notability. Noting tha tthis is an autobiography, or memoir, which makes it seem reasonable to have a single article on author and book. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a small literary journal; it's a mill publication with no indicator of reliability. Forewords don't count as a review. ∯WBG^converse 15:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a small, non-notable literary journal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

currently there are 2 reviews from solid sources on the page, and a foreward to the book, which was posthumously published. It looks as though it was published by his children, eash of whomhas a page. Frankly I am unsure whether the children computer science professor Subhash Kak, computer scientist Avinash Kak and literary theorist Jaishree Odin are notable or whether this is a family that self-promotes on Wikipedia. I am withdrawing , at least for now.
Delete - one minor book is not enough to establish notability per
WP:NOTINHERITED - delete - Epinoia (talk) 03:12, 15 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noninterference (Buddhism)

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

From searches on Google Scholar and News there does not appear to be a notable connection between Buddhism and the concept-of non-interference. Standard reference works like the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism and Thomson-Gale's Encyclopedia of Buddhism do not contain any mentioning of the subject, let alone an entry on it. The wiki article as it is now, is completely unsourced and contains no evidence of notability. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails
WP:OR. JimRenge (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. The recent lengthy addition, which probably prompted this AfD, is entirely
WP:POV. That definitely has to go whatever the outcome of this AfD. That leaves us with the original single sentence that sounds to me like it could be a Buddhist principle, but I'm not seeing any verification of it. There is the Buddhist idea of detachment through meditation, but that is not quite the same thing and in any case a single sentence will say no more than is already in the Buddhism article. I'm seeing references in sources to two meanings of Buddhist non-interference, neither of which matches the definition given in this article (...the idea that all things are impermanent, with a resignation to events beyond human control.). The first is the idea that Buddhist monks should not interfere in worldly affairs (e.g. Encyclopedia of Monasticism) and the second is non-interference with local religious practices (e.g. Encyclopedia of Buddhism). I have no objection to creation of a well-sourced article at this title, but there is nothing worth keeping in the current offering. SpinningSpark 11:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Spinningspark, Thanks for pointing out that instance of non-interference that i missed in Buswell's encyclopedia. Still, my argument holds, so I am glad we agree on this.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this appears to be completely original research
WP:GNG, has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 03:01, 15 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 speedy keep per

(non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 11:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

University of North Carolina at Charlotte shooting

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

I am proposing this for deletion to test Wikipedia deletion policy against the huge number of articles created in relations to shootings in the United States. Wikipedia doesn't need a repository of every documented school/shooting event, there is already a list for this

WP:NOTNEWSPAPER --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 07:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Per my comments elsewhere this AfD is intentional disruption and should be treated as such; if you want to change Wikipedia policy to exclude an entire class of articles because you personally don't find them interesting, start an RFC. ‑
Iridescent 09:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. Responding your comments 'elsewhere', I understand that you agitate the position that Wikipedia doesn't operate on precedence but apply policies to each nomination separately. This argument is logically inconsistent, if some fact is used to apply a policy one way, the same logic can be used to apply the policy to a similar set of facts. Otherwise, there would be no need for policies in the first place, if they are going to arbitrarily applied. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 09:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "agitating", it's a straightforward statement of fact. If you really want to go down the Wikilawyering route, a topic in automatically notable in Wikipedia terms provided it meets either
Iridescent 10:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@

Iridescent: I wouldn't call a routine occurrence a 'major' incident, there is already a list of school shootings in the United States. The fact this shooting occurred warrants documentation from a historical perspective, which is achieved through the list. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 10:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Pinging Other editors recently invovled in another shooting releated delation discussion. Chandrani876, Blackknight12, Hirunika Balasuriya, Cheesy McGee, Randeepa Steven (Editor) --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 11:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As we dont have a page for every fallen soldier or every military deployment in war, just as we dont have articles for every murder or homicide; however, any major events which pass
talk) 11:03, 10 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 G5'd by Oshwah a couple days ago. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mongol destruction of Iran

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

POV content fork of

Mongol conquest of Khwarezmia. Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – John M Wolfson (talk | contribs) 13:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or rather redirect to
Mongol conquest of Khwarezmia). The article suggests genocide on an incredible scale. If this were correct, a substantive academic source would be needed, but destruction of an army does not necessarily imply the killing of all the people. If it did, several cities that have remained occupied would have disappeared. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
Mongol conquest of Khwarezmia - which I concur this article is a poor fork of. I do think that the title, with the more modernly used Iran, is a plausible search term (as is Persia). Icewhiz (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect per
Mongol conquest of Khwarezmia- MA Javadi (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect as above, as the non NPOV goes to the core of the topic in context of pages on other wars. Also find Destruction under the Mongol Empire alittle off, but that is for another day. One page for every war and other for the destruction caused during it, seems unnecessary. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Some problems solve themselves? (Dushan Jugum (talk) 03:20, 15 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (can be seen on bottom of the discussion). (non-admin closure) SSSB (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Leclerc (disambiguation)

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

Pointless DAB page as the racer is the primary topic, so hatnote there to the general's article would suffice and reduce clicks to get there Joseph2302 (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are several other notable people with that name. See fr:Charles Leclerc in the French Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Third entry (per French Wikipedia) makes hatnote less viable. Wknight94 ^talk 14:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The other two people referred to in the page are notable. No reason for deletion. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 15:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. There are now 3 names listed in the disambiguation and there is a draft for what will be a fourth, the reason for deletion no longer applies. SSSB (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep snow keep.
talk) 15:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm happy to keep this now there are 3 people on the DAB page (only 2 when I nominated it). Consider this as me withdrawing my AfD nomination. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 10 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geethaiyin Raadhai

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

the unremarkable movie does not qualify

WP:NFO thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 05:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 05:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 05:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 05:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, this does not meet
WP:OR.Grapefruit17 (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - does not meet any of the five criteria of
WP:NFO - refs given in the article are sketchy (IMDB, Spotify) - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 02:47, 15 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edward J. Crawford

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

The only source that actually mentions the subject in any depth is [16], which mostly just quotes him speaking on behalf of a company he founded. Does not meet

WP:ANYBIO on its own. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what a roundabout
WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 06:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Not finding significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources as needed to satisfy
WP:GNG. The only source in the article that focuses on him is an announcement of his wedding in a local newspaper. Cbl62 (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 01:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Delete Peace Corps, Naval Intelligence, Goldman Sachs, political funder, charity funder, founder of a private equity firm. Great resume. Fails
WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:15, 12 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 Keep per

WP:POINT. (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 06:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply