Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 21: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:02, 21 November 2017

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 November	22 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete and redirect to Category:Voice actors. Sandstein 12:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of voice actors

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

One big unsourced ball of fandom listcruft. It has been tagged as badly sourced since 2010 and has gone through two AfDs in that time, without improvement. There is no useful value to this list (voice actors are commonplace and we have categories to list them). The detail in this list is excessive, as there is negligible sourcing. It certainly has no value beyond listing the actor names, as a category would do better.

I'm prompted to list this because of this edit, a persistent vandal today dumping another similar 3k block of unsourced, unverifiable BLP. Yet it's not actually any worse than what's here already. We can't polish this, so we should flush it. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Category:Voice actors. I know it's cross-categorization, but that's a good way to deal with thousands of entries, and can apply WP:CATDEF as to who is really a voice actor and who just had a bit voice-over role in whatever, the latter of which is pretty much everyone who's been an actor. If you skim through Lists of actors, you'll see a good chunk of them as redirecting to categories. Maintaining a list of "well, what were they in?" is not useful. You get guest voices on the Simpsons from all sorts of celebs, and they're suddenly classified as voice actors? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that redirect. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Category:Voice actors per AngusWOOF. It's cross-namespace, but R2 doesn't cover this type of redirect. While long lists like this can't be controlled as easy, the category can just as well work as additions on the articles in question would need to be sourced anyway. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 21:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Per WP:SALAT, "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value." Pburka (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List is too broad in scope to be useful, because there are simply too many people who have worked as voice actors, too many editors who think every voice actor who exists gets an automatic notability freebie regardless of their sourceability (further adding a constant ebb and flow of additions and removals), and too many people who get added here on the basis of having once voiced a two-line cameo on The Simpsons without ever having had a regular voice-acting role at all, for this to be a maintainable list. Redirecting to a category is never a useful thing to do with a list title, either — for one thing, voice actors are subcategorized by nationality and gender, so there are exactly zero people filed directly in Category:Voice actors at all. So a person typing this title into the search bar won't actually end up at any actual list. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT. The scope of this list is far too broad and too general to be useful. Wikipedia has thousands of biographies of voice actors from different nationalities to be of any use and countless more of regular actors who performed voice roles. —Farix (t | c) 15:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT, the categories present make up for the list in a big way. I am neutral on a redirect here as I am unsure if it would be helpful or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2017 (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 delete. Given the obvious copyright violation and the lack of non-copyvio content that would form the basis for an article, deletion per WP:G12 was the only route. This is not to say that a list of podcast episodes such as this one is or isn't notable; that would of course be decided based on the sources in each case. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hello Internet Episodes

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information, such as detailed lists of podcast episodes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You cannot delete an episode description page on an "indiscriminate information basis." The episode list is useful for people who want to know a bit about the show without having to leave Wikipedia to find it in the iTunes store or their page, then find the episode description list, then find what they want. It is easy access. Furthermore, on the basis of the previous attempt to do this, the fact it is a talk show doesn't work against it as List of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver episodes exists as an episode description page for a talk show. There can't be multiple standards for the pages. If it is off the main page, as not to clutter it, then what exactly is the problem? UnknownM1 (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history of the Podcast page, this was on a rollback because the editor of that page thought that listing the episodes was "messy." Yet this is valid information, compiled in a standard Wikipedia reference form for the purpose. It should be on the primary page Hello_Internet and User:Daniel Rigal should not have reversed it. Theclevertwit (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyright infringement of episode list on iTunes. (Tagged)

I do not take kindly to my talk page comments being misrepresented. I did not use the word "messy" in either an edit summary or a talk page comment. What I actually said on the talk page was:

"I removed the list because it seemed to be copied directly from iTunes or from Hello Internet itself. We don't want a lot of content copied from other sources but what we can do is link to it instead."

That was me being nice, pointing out that we can't plagiarise other sources listings in a gentle way and being nice by adding a link to the full episode list under External links. I know that no good deed goes unpunished but I am not taking a trouting for this!

Now, this is me being slightly less nice, but not unreasonably so: The podcast teeters on the edge of being notable enough for an article. It falls just the right side of the line for a single article. It does not justify a stand alone episode list (like a highly notable TV show can do) or a walled garden of additional articles. Copyright issues aside, it does not offer the readers any advantage to look at a list of episodes on Wikipedia instead of on iTunes or HI's own website (which I linked to under External links). The "Tims" can put what they like on their own Wiki (and take the consequences if it turns out to be somebody else's copyright) but Wikipedia is not free web hosting for fansites. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is more of a WP:NOTCATALOGUE breach rather than being an indiscriminate list. Ajf773 (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It doesn't matter what counter point is made, this list has a copyright infringement and needs to be deleted, further more, a list of episodes of an internet podcast is certainly not noteworthy nor encyclopedic content.Grapefruit17 (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorance space

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

Part of a walled garden of self-promotion, wholly reliant upon primary sources. See also the AfDs for Random structure function, Bernoulli stochastics, Bernoulli space, Stochastic thinking, Stochastic prediction procedure, Stochastic measurement procedure, and Quantification of randomness. XOR'easter (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Variability function. XOR'easter (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google finds nearly 20 hits on this (filtered to include Collani to avoid unrelated things with the same name) but they all appear to be by Collani's associates. With no in-depth sourcing by multiple groups independent of its originator, it fails WP:GNG. Also it appears to be content-free drivel but I guess that's not relevant to our notability criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is clear synthesis of one primary source and this introducing WP:OR in Wikipedia. No other reliable sources discussed this invented concept in this sense –Ammarpad (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as with the rest, needs independent reliable sources to pass WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aftab Pureval

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

A puffery-filled personal bio of a politician who doesn't meet WP:NPOL. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I feel like I've done a decent job of stating facts objectively and without puffery; however, I do concede that I haven't included enough opposing viewpoints, and I'm working to fix that. As for notability, I feel strongly that Pureval meets WP:GNG for significant coverage in reliable sources. Of particular note are the Daily Kos piece ([1]), this coverage in AdAge (I haven't yet added his Aftab/Aflac campaign advertising to the article), and the lengthy Cincinnati profile ([2]). He has also received significant local coverage beyond what is normally expected for the oft-ignored clerk of courts position -- compare the sources available on Google for "aftab pureval" vs those for his predecessor, "tracy winkler". -IagoQnsi (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clerk of courts at the county level is not a notability criterion that would get a person into Wikipedia under WP:NPOL, but the sourcing here is not making a strong case that he could be considered more notable than the norm. It's an office whose holders would simply be expected to generate some coverage in their county's own local media, so local coverage isn't enough to demonstrate notability by itself — to consider a person at this level of office notable enough for an article, we would require evidence that he was getting nationalized coverage beyond just Cincinnati media alone, thereby making him more notable than most other clerks of courts in most other counties. The fact that he may be more visible within Cincy than his predecessor was isn't the make-or-break condition in and of itself — the determing factor is whether or not his prominence can be shown as significantly wider (i.e. statewide or national) than most other court clerks could claim. But the only evidence of that being shown here is Daily Kos, which is not a notability-supporting source because it's a user-generated activist blog, not a media outlet. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I concede; I made a mistake here. I had read WP:NPOL before writing the article, but I hadn't read WP:POLOUTCOMES, so I didn't realize that meeting WP:GNG isn't sufficient for local politicians if the sources are almost entirely local. Mea culpa. (However, I am gonna hang on to a copy of the article, because I think it's pretty likely that he'll become notable in the future). -IagoQnsi (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local politicians with this type of office are not in any way default notable and we need non-local coverage to be more than routine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 12:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Paradise

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

Recent AfD and a non-admin closure, but a bit late to simply re-open it.

They're a professor. But do they pass WP:ACADEMIC? I'm seeing neither the extent, nor the sourcing to justify this. This is another bio from a problematic community banned paid editor (KDS4444). Andy Dingley (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep distinguished chair at a research university. It means he passes PROF, and its been worked on by other editors to try to make it comply with our guidelines. Not a fan of the paid stuff, but Jytdog and others have helped here, so it isn't solely the work of a paid editor or only intended to promote. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So we're happy to take this on the basis of only a job title and a TV credit? This is supposedly an academic biography, yet there isn't even a publications list. A CV so thin would have a hard time getting a postdoc role, let alone claiming to be NOTABLE. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because of how North American academic ranks work. It means that he does meet the other PROF criteria without having to check. We also just had an RfC on this that confirmed passing PROF establishes notability independent of the GNG, and he clearly passes PROF. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what is his "rank"? The infobox claims "Distinguished professor", but the staff list states "University professor". This is an article which might well end up labelled as "notable", but it's also painfully lax. We're not usually so accommodating to our editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, his details are on his university page. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps amazingly, I've already read that. And nowhere does it call him a "Distinguished professor", which is what the infobox claims. Now maybe in Arkansas a "University professor" is something special, but it isn't round here. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A University Professorship is a specific professorship given to academics with the rank of distinguished professor at some North American universities. It is different than simply being a professor at a university. It is a specific title for a highly regarded academic at the institution. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, you wrote "A CV so thin would have a hard time getting a postdoc role", so I assumed you hadn't found his page. For "University Professor", see Academic ranks in the United States. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PROF. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. "Distinguished Professor" generally means someone with well-above-ordinary scholarship, and "University Professor" sometimes means something similar (at my campus it is like Distinguished Professor but even more rarefied). But at Arkansas it seems to mean someone with extraordinary contributions to service rather than to scholarship. So I don't think this is quite what we usually expect in WP:PROF#C5. Instead, in this case, it appears to be evidence of WP:PROF#C7, "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity", presumably for his general-audience work on Petra. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's a distinguished chair at a notable research university. It means he satisfies PROF. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMHE (which is UK) someone with a "distinguished chair" would be titled as holding the "Zoidberg Chair in Psychoceramics" or similar. I can see no such description. Nor can I see "distinguished professor" being used anywhere outside our own infobox. As a BLP, we have to source such things, especially when their notability rests upon them. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a " distinguished chair" he certainly passes WP:PROF and the renomination is a bit rushy with the previous AfD resulting in speedy keep barely 30 days ago. — Ammarpad (talk) 08:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C7, per David Eppstein's argument above. XOR'easter (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with Dingley. In the US true holders of "distinguished chairs" hold named chairs. If he does not have a named chair, at least in the US, he does not pass Academic criteria #7.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? "Named chair" means: someone gave money to the school, and you were the best we could find in that subject. "Distinguished professor" or in this cases "University professor" may be more meaningful, because it generally has specific levels of distinction required (that I have linked to above) rather than merely an endowment fund. In addition, "Distinguished professor" is specifically called out as equivalent to named professorships in the relevant WP:PROF criterion (which is not #7). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- meets WP:PROF and per the 1st AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2017 (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andorra–Azerbaijan relations

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

No particular claim of notability. Unless all bi-lateral relations are notable, there's no reason to believe this one is. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no inherent notability. all there is diplomatic recognition and nothing else. LibStar (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep relations between two entities with mutual recognition and notability. Tart (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

simply having recognition does not give inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I expanded the article. Now it has more relevance. Super Ψ Dro 14:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LibsStar. Also, what expansion? What there is, is pretty much indistinguishable from a short directory listing. --Calton | Talk 22:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How that what expansion? Look at the previous version, when that article was nominated and now, please. The truth, I do not know why, instead of fixing it, you are making a vote to delete the article. Super Ψ Dro 23:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the thread at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_138#Articles_on_bi-lateral_relations may be of interest when closing this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The default criterion for inclusion is meeting WP:GNG and this bilateral- relationship doesn't meet it. After similar AfDs like this now there's this attempt to agree on policy or guideline concerning whether countries relationships are automatically notable. But in the meantime that's only proposal, therefore only WP:SIGCOV of their relationship can be used to establish notability. And for this article there is no such sources and the stub is nothing save to show each country know the other exists. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Foreign relations of Azerbaijan and Foreign relations of Andorra, both of which have tables for keeping track of the details of visits that this article now includes. MarginalCost (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 06:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per LibStar. While I agree that the article has been expanded since then, I don't agree that there's an awful lot more going for it. GNG wasn't met and still isn't. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't understand why people create pages as esoteric as this and I certainly don't understand why people obsess and make a hobby of deleting them. This particular one fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I did not know that you could not create esoteric pages. In that case, tell me what I have to create. Super Ψ Dro 14:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee house church

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

Tagged as needing sources for over 7 years. This seems to be a rarely used WP:NEOLOGISM. An (admittedly shallow) search didn't turn up any good sources, although the phrase does appear occasionally. Note that this article isn't about coffeehouses run by churches (a trend in the USA for a while), but about congregations who meet in regular coffeehouses. Pburka (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely no sources. No evidence provided that the Catholic Church would approve of mass in a non-standard location like this. On the other hand, it makes assertions that having a worship service in a restaurant is inherently different from having one in a standard church building. Considering that the Harlem 1st branch that started meeting in a room in Sylvia's Restaurant of Harlem 20 years ago is the same organization as the Harlem 1st Ward that today meets in a regularly built LDS Chapel, I strongly suspect that the assertions of this article would not be held to be all people.Johen Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It might be classified as a dictionary definition. This is a genuine way of conducting mission. It might be transwikified. Whatever the outcome, the list of denominations needs to be removed as largely irrelevant. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Kruchinin

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

Scopus says h-index of 8, well below the threshold for WP:PROF. Editor of two journals that turn out to be predatory. WP:PEACOCK added by the WP:SPAs who are the main substantive contributors. However, Russian, so some of the issues with this awful article might be down to language difficulties. Guy (Help!) 00:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see a way to passing WP:PROF. GS citation counts for his listed publications: 0, 12, 15, 15, 18, 31, 14, 3, 30, 51, 14, 0, 2, 3. Even allowing for the irregularities of what GS sees and what it misses, there's no way this adds up to "influential". The 2010 textbook he coauthored has only 39 citations, and I can't find reviews of it. No evidence of awards or highly selective society fellowships that could indicate professional recognition. XOR'easter (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With the predatory editorships removed there is no evidence of WP:PROF. This article is puffed up in a particularly eastern-European way, but that's neither here nor there except that it makes any actual notability hard to find among all the noise. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the start is overly promotional and full of unneeded padding. If there was substance this might be overcomeable, but he just does not meet the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Basic and Applied Physics

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

This article was created by a WP:SPA - in fact, creating this article was their sole edit. Amazingly, they "forgot" to mention that the publisher is listed by Beall as predatory. Not in Thomson ISI, not in JIF, not in DOAJ. Not in any way notable. Guy (Help!) 00:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose that a fraudulent journal could attain notability by being widely discussed as such, but this is nowhere near that level. XOR'easter (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically per the same reasoning as WP:FRINGE: Without sources discussing the predatory nature of this journal we have no way to write a properly WP:NPOV article. If we had an article on the publisher we could redirect there, but we don't. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following articles cite this journal btw: Prime number theorem, Taylor's law Tweedie distribution. It would also be more accurate to say that this was created by the journal's editor (hello massive COI here). In any case, delete.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this article is literally two short sentences, one external link, and a short table to make it appear better. Along with that, the article if you could even call it that, has four major issues tagged at the top which in my opinion constitutes deletion alone. definitely not WP:N and seems to be advertising somewhat, further more this information can all be found on the official website which not surprisingly was the one source for this article.Grapefruit17 (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding the nominator's statement that "the publisher is listed by Beall as predatory," here is support for that statement: The publisher listed in the wp article is World Academic Publishing, and that organization is listed as a predatory publisher here and here. -- econterms (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2017 (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.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of voice actors (3rd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hello Internet Episodes}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignorance space}}