Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 6: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 06:12, 6 April 2019

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 April	7 April >

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 keep. Consensus was to keep (citing WP:LISTN). (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 04:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Irish supercentenarians

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

The list is very short and has no standalone notability per WP:LISTN, therefore falls under WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The oldest known Irish person, Katherine Plunket, has her own article. The next two, Margaret Dolan and Mary Ellen Geaney, are not notable, and died too "young" to be mentioned in any of our other lists such as List of the verified oldest people. Finally, people listed in the section about emigrants and who are "old enough" are already mentioned in the American, British and Canadian lists of supercentenarians, including their country of birth. Accordingly, we won't lose any relevant information by deleting this list, a legacy from GRG overreach. — JFG ^talk 06:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the detailed nom. Listcruft, fails LISTN. --Randykitty (talk) 07:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Is this an less notable a list than all the other similar lists found in Category:Lists of supercentenarians by nationality? Ok, it's short but at the time these people were born, Ireland only had a population of around 3 million. What do you expect for a small country with a small population? ww2censor (talk) 10:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This, along with all the other by-country lists, is a split-out of List of supercentenarians by continent, to prevent that article from becoming too large. Such split-outs do not require the standalone notability of WP:LISTN as long as the "parent" list meets the guidleine. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What? So a bunch of non-notable oldsters from a random country deserve a list here because a much broader general list on the subject is notable? That doesn't follow. Also, where are the reliable sources to show this is notable? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there seems to be an assumption that anything to do with the GRG should be deleted. There were several similar ill-considered noms at cfd recently. It is hardly WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Oculi (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is ongoing war against any articles on Wikipedia relating to longevity. Why would this information be a cause of such angst to people? If other countries have similar entries, why should Ireland not be allowed to have the same information available? Crveni5 (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. There are almost no sources about supercentenarians in Ireland, just a list of names from one database. Every reference in this article is either a GRG page or something about British supercentenarians, demonstrating the lack of notability for this subject. Plus, there's the simple fact that not a single person on that list was born in the country of Ireland; everyone there entered the world while Ireland was part of the British Empire, even if their departure was after Ireland's statehood. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per UnitedStatesian Spiderone 21:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There would be issues with creating article on each of these names but a list is justifiable as it meets LISTN. Kaweendra (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per UnitedStatesian. Also I don't see anyone proposing to delete/merge the List of Finnish supercentenarians, even though everyone on the list was born when Finland was part of the Russian Empire. Spleodrach (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAX. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per UnitedStatesian. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is indeed a bit small, but I am unsure about merging, the UK article has the potential to grow a lot more and this information would be better separate in the long run. Garlicolive (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn nomination with no input from Wikipedia editors on whether to Keep or Delete. A non-admin closure. Capt. Milokan (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carol McGregor

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

GNG fail and WP:ARTIST fail. Four sources, most of which do not appear to be independent RS. I cannot find any more than that in a search. I did see event announcements, talks, interviews and the like, but those are not enough in terms of independent recognition in reliable sources. I'll be happy if someone can prove me wrong. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, see comment below.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I partially disagree with the nominator that the sources "do not appear to be independent RS". At the time of nomination, there were four sources, two of them problematic:

http://www.carolmcgregor.com.au (the subject, clearly WP:PRIMARY)
https://www.griffith.edu.au/art-museum (does not mention the subject, but she is listed as a Higher Degree Research candidate at https://www.griffith.edu.au/centre-creative-arts-research/our-researchers, so there is a connection.
https://ima.org.au/exhibitions/the-commute/ The Institute of Modern Art used visiting curators to organize the exhibition. There is no close affiliation between the artists and the institute other than that they showed her work.
http://www.portrait.gov.au/content/so-fine-2018/ The National Portrait Gallery similarly is a museum that makes its curatorial decisions independently, something that is implicitly recognized in WP:NARTIST. https://www.portrait.gov.au/content/so-fine-carol-mcgregor, a statement by the artist, is a primary source. That still doesn't mean it can't be used. Policy, per WP:PRIMARY is that "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Vexations (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from a different angle, it appears her work is in two public collections. Kluge-Ruhe Aboriginal Art Collection clearly satisfies the requirements. I don't know enough about Australian art organizations to make the call on the other one, but given that they are a public institution and have a permamenent collection, I am leaning towards accepting it as satisfying 4(d) --Theredproject (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have been looking for sources and adding some, as well as looking for collections which hold her work. I may be able to add some quotes from reviews, although there are some I don't have access to (on ProQuest). The Commute exhibition at the Institute of Modern Art, Brisbane, is of works commissioned from the artists - whether that means the works will become part of the permanent collection of IMA, I don't know. I think that she is close to meeting WP:NARTIST, though that's not completely clear yet. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn I didn't mean for this to be a cleanup, but it has been, and that is good. References have been found and added, and the two collections do seem to mean she meets WP:ARTIST. I still think there is little in terms of truly independent coverage, but she seems to meet notability on other grounds. (One thing I want to remark on, and this is not applicable to the article at hand, was the use of indigenous art collections as notability criteria. This is fine for contemporary living artists, but it immediately struck me that many museum collections are full of stolen aboriginal art! Again, not related to contemporary living artists and the article at hand, but interesting given the history of (often forced) appropriation in that area.)ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:02, 6 April 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. There is a strong consensus to delete, and as suggested I will salt the page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge Back to Life

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

In its earlier version, this was a coatrack for the doctor prominently mentioned in the article. In its current version, with most of that information removed, it is no longer notable. See also the extensive delete history (and here too!) for the Dr in question. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Pit there are not any more sources for a place established in 1988.TH1980 (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is certainly many more sources which establish Bridge Back to Life as an OASAS certified outpatient addiction treatment program with numerous centers throughout NY metropolitan area. This fact is not even in question. Additionally, the owner Gary Butchen, has extensive and unique qualifications. This page does not list all of his qualification but a simple search will show this. Here is another link: https://www.lohud.com/story/news/crime/2019/03/28/opiod-lawsuit-sackler-purdue-pharma-drug-crisis-oxycontin/3300544002/. Also, I agree that there was a significant amount of information about the medical director - Dr. Russell Surasky, however his notoriety as a triple board certified physician is also well established. If someone would do a little basic research about Bridge Back to Life this nomination for deletion would have never even been started.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.85.164.33 (talk • contribs) Strikng comment of blocked editor/ likely sockpuppet.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Comment: The above IP user has been blocked for one week for repeatedly removing the AfD notification template from the article in question, and for re-introducing content to the article that was previously introduced to Draft:Russell Surasky by users who have been indef blocked for sockpuppetry and for undisclosed paid editing. I would recommend that the closing admin take into account that this is likely an IP sock of a blocked user. ST47 (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is an infomercial for the doctor, and given the difficulty in establishing an article about him, looks like a backdoor effort. The facility doesn't appear notable. To be clear, this is the version I was referring to [1]. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt The text of this article which is repeatedly being added by IP users and sockpuppet accounts is substantially similar to the deleted content of Draft:Russell Surasky, which was Russell Surasky, before it was deleted several times, salted, and gotten no fewer than six different accounts indef banned for socking or for undisclosed paid editing. If this AfD is closed as "delete", please also salt the page. ST47 (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot see how this facility passes WP:ORG or the WP:GNG - couldn't find much coverage in sources. Zingarese talk · contribs 04:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely promotional rubbish not WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 20:23, 11 April 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 Edda Awards. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edda Award for Best Short Film

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

An award at a show that may or may not be notable. Either delete or a redirect be the best I think. No references to be found either. (Not sure of the notability of the other categories at the show.-one can check to see) Wgolf (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Edda Awards. These sub-articles are severely out of date (many updated 13 years ago, like this one), and they should probably all redirect to the parent article. The award show itself has some notability (albeit minor) as being the only large film award in Iceland, but the Edda Awards article might need to be written from scratch. – Þjarkur (talk) 13:05, 6 April 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Schenck

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

Poorly sourced, promotional creation that has not been improved in nearly 10 years of existence. Nothing to show meeting WP:GNG and a WP:BEFORE source turns up a fair amount of self-promotion and some passing mentions. Melcous (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete If the article has not been improved in a decade, it can go.TH1980 (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any reason for keeping this article. TheEditster (talk) 10:01, 6 April 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley Uyi Idehen

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

Unsourced BLP. One apparently spurious hit on Gnews, one verifiable hit on Gbooks. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenLink Software. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Heavily promotional and lacks any reliable third party sources. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo, not notable. Graywalls (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find sources.Jacona (talk) 12:45, 7 April 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OpenLink Software

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

I declined a G11 speedy deletion of this. However, I see nothing resembling the level of in-depth coverage required to satisfy WP:NCORP, so listing here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:01, 6 April 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.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Irish supercentenarians}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol McGregor}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridge Back to Life}}