Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Amorymeltzer (talk | contribs) at 21:35, 2 August 2018 (Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myth (streamer) (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 1 August 3 August >

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 that at least some of the additional sources are suitable (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Myth (streamer)

Myth (streamer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources are available on this guy to show his notability. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO John from Idegon (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 17:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 17:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant mentions in quite a few RS: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], center of an article by Forbes: [9] (and a Daily Mail article - which is prominent but not considered RS: [10]), as well as numerous mentions in questionably notable websites that are either smaller or focused around Fortnite: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17], etc. Additionally, if you consider esports to be sports, he's fairly prominent in that, being the captain of the team of a fairly prominent group ([18] [19]). LittlePuppers (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - significant coverage in Forbes [20] and ESPN [21], and referenced on Polygon [22]. Just shy of 4m followers on Twitch certainly suggests some notability. Badly sourced article rather than non-notable figure, I think. I'll take some time to work in those references tomorrow. Mattyjohn (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep [23] feels like the best coverage of the bunch. The rest seems to put in him a group with others (or even just mention him in passing as compared to Ninja). However the repeated grouping of him as a top person by RS was enough to put in in as a week keep.I put no stock in number of Twitch followers as an indication of notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Noting that he now appears to be the second most followed streamer on Twitch.tv [24], as of 48 hours ago.Mattyjohn (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2018 (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. North America1000 07:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Evans

Tommy Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. He is mentioned in many references but in passing associated with his positions at CNN. There are two in-depth pieces but both are from university websites and one is content provided by him ("CNN London Chief Shares Story"). CNMall41 (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mortee - On its face, it would meet notability; however, after conducting WP:BEFORE, it does not. Since we base pages on reliable sources, we need to be able to find them to verify what is in the body. There are a few sources that mention that awards, but they are his profiles or from his college, none of which are considered reliable or independent. You would think that someone winning all these awards would have sources to prove it, but a search for them wound up finding nothing usable. In fact, a search of the Peabody award site itself shows that CNN (not him) was awarded a Peabody. Quote - "For its continued investment in such war coverage, especially as global conflicts simmer, we commend CNN and honor it with a Peabody Award" - --CNMall41 (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that wasn't an individual award, but he was named as part of the team it was awarded to (per your ref). Same for the Emmy here, for example. The Prix Bayeux is more of a stretch. It explicitly went to Nic Robertson, though for a particular story presented by him that Evans produced.[25] So he's produced a lot of award-winning work, which isn't nothing, but without individual wins, perhaps ANYBIO isn't clear-cut. You're right that finding in-depth coverage isn't as easy as one might hope. I'll strike my vote for now and try to revisit this in more depth. › Mortee talk 16:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 10:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Szasz

Robert Szasz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

does not meet WP:BIO Yogibeera (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2018 (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. North America1000 00:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ACM ICPC Dhaka Site

ACM ICPC Dhaka Site (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD; my concern was is that it has exclusively local weak third-party coverage, and that even that comes from only two newspapers. wumbolo ^^^ 20:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could you link to the coverage you're talking about, and relate that to our policies and guidelines? Nearly every English-language news source in Bangladesh is national ("local" to Bangladesh, a country of 160 million people) or local to Dhaka, a metropolitan area of 19.5 million people ("local" only in the sense that The New York Times is local to New York, or The Times is local to London). --Worldbruce (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the newspapers is the Dhaka Tribune (articles [33] [34]). The other is the Daily Star which I mistakenly thought was a Dhaka newspaper (articles [35] [36] [37]). Not local then, but I'd say that most of these articles are promotional, short or only give the competition a slight mention. wumbolo ^^^ 16:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2018 (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. SoWhy 15:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martynas Šedys

Martynas Šedys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This athlete had things going for him in age-specific competitions, similar to high school football, but has never competed in a major competition for grownups. Geschichte (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) Gameinfirmary (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) Gameinfirmary (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He doesn't meet any of the notability criteria for track and field athletes and my search found no significant independent coverage to support a claim of meeting WP:GNG. Routine sports reporting and links to database pages showing his results are insufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2018 (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. Also eligible for speedy deletion under G5, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ErnestCarrot. MER-C 18:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aleit Swanepoel

Aleit Swanepoel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

doesn't pass WP:GNG. Article was speedied in 2015 Not enough has changed since then to warrant it. Mostly passing mentions due to a wedding but other than those passing mentions still is as unnotable as it was when it was speedied in 2015. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 06:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2018 (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. If someone wants to create an article for the LewisGale Regional Health System (@Tingrin87), I'll be happy to provide a copy of the article for merging but until a merge target exists, nothing can be merged. SoWhy 15:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LewisGale Medical Center

LewisGale Medical Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. History only lists a vague founding date, and that 5 people were treated there after the VT shooting. -TG 19:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:59, 17 August 2018 (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. SoWhy 15:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth O'Day

Elizabeth O'Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete. The page appears to be a copypasta of her resume, which is not very impressive. A search on Google Scholar shows that since her last paper, nearly 5 years ago, she has published one opinion paper - not very impressive for a scientist. It also shows no patents. The last mention about her on Google News dates from 2016 - not very impressive for a public personality. In particular, there is no mention any venture funds being accrued by her company - which suggests she lacks any backers, and any products. In fact, according to manta.com, her company has 1 employee, and 23 thousand dollars revenue. No article in Wikipedia links to her page, because, again, she is not notable. I'd venture to say that her inclusion into a list of women-scientists devalues the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.21.197 (talk • contribs) 17:05, August 2, 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 18:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 19:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 19:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 19:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First, as I said above, the biotech company she founded is less than a unicorn. There are no venture funds, and probably no employees. Second, re. Lizzard Fashion, that was a T-shirt printing operations, not "fashion" by any common sense definition of the word "fashion". Also, Lizzard Fashion went down so thoroughly, even the .com domain was not renewed, and is currently parked. Third, I am not sure what do you mean by "making a splash". She is definitely one of the less successful membres of her Harvard class. Fourth, you employ those old articles (2006 and 2011), as if they somehow support your claims. However, they do not address her business skills, and merely show another facet of her trying-and-failing approach. I have no metrics to judge her achievement in science popularization or her effort to get girls into science education, except for the fact that she gave up on them. 73.61.21.108 (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This entirely misses the point. Notability is not about being worthy, it is not about success, it is not about business skills or other talents. The decision is not one that involves evaluating the individual's accomplishments. (Eddie the Eagle was a sub-Olympic-quality Olympic ski-jumper who never won anything, but he is unquestionably notable because the international media chose to cover the fact that he was sub-standard, and the controversy his participation engendered.) It is not a competition, where only the most notable members of a Harvard class qualify. Simply put: Has the individual received substantial non-routine coverage in sources with a reputation for reliability? If you want to argue that the coverage she received is routine local news, that is one thing, but it is an invalid argument to suggest that the person is non-notable because they are not successful, because their company failed, because their other company only has a dozen employees, or any other evaluation of their business acumen or perceived societal value. Agricolae (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Yes, thanks, Agricolae. People don't have to be either successful or skillful to have Wikipedia articles written about them, they just have to have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". So getting continued media coverage, for whatever reason, generally suffices, even if that is for trying-and-failing. We have perfectly fine articles for Pets.com and Elizabeth Holmes and Arming America and, yes, Eddie the Eagle, and hundreds and hundreds of other articles about people or businesses that are generally not considered "successful". --GRuban (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reminding me. Per Wikipedia:Notability, "Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." The articles you listed are not secondary sources. Elizabeth Holmes is listed in 'secondary sources', as she is the posted child for biotech unicorns, investor fraud, and the incipient government-biotech complex. O'Day is not that either. 73.61.21.80 (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - without addressing her notability, devaluation has absolutely nothing to do with it. We can't make our decision based on the implications of having a page. She is either notable or not notable, and if she is notable, let the chips fall where they may. We can't decide someone is not notable just because we don't like the fact that they may be, or that they are notable for what we think are the 'wrong' reasons. Agricolae (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A GS h-index of 14 is too low for a very high-cited field to pass WP:Prof: WP:Too soon. The BLP is over long and reads as if written by a PR team to squeeze in any possible material. If kept, it should be reduced by 75% to remove the bloat. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I agree with this last. The compiler of this BLP has material that I doubt anybody but the subject or their publicist would have had access to - or cared about: undergraduate scholarships? invited speaker of a government panel in the UAE? reporting by a Lebanese television station? university honor society? a 'Selected publications' section that includes a paper on which she is the 16th author (looking at PubMed it is hard to find a paper she had published at the time this was created that was not 'selected')? I truly think our editor was looking at her curriculum vitae when they wrote this. Agricolae (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Having just looked at the article links posted above, the subject passes the GNG; done deal. Whether she meets the prof test is irrelevant -- she meets the GNG. Whether her company succeeded or not is irrelevant -- she meets the GNG. That the cites representing the "significant coverage" in "multiple reliable sources" the GNG requires were published longer ago than the last news cycle is irrelevant -- she meets the GNG (and allow me to quote from WP:N - "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."). Whether there are more successful folks from her college graduating class, whether her business skills (or lack thereof) are highlighted, these are all irrelevant etc. (That the article itself is bloated is a content dispute, and not relevant here at AfD, and nothing stops anyone who thinks it is from trimming it as seems to them good.) Ravenswing 06:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GNG requires that the notable person is mentioned in secondary sources. Can you provide one mention of her that is not more-or-less an interview with her (that is, a secondary source)? 73.61.21.59 (talk) 11:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The 4 indepth articles about her are secondary sources. They include quotes from her - and frankly, any indepth articles about a person that don't include any are going to be strange - but they are not interviews. "more-or-less" is not a standard we have. --GRuban (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article 'Enzymes and ambition' has 5870 characters, of which 1,410 characters are direct quotes. I excluded paraphrases (another 500 or so characters), and the six occurrences of the literal phrase "O'Day said". It is an interview printed in a narrative form. Similarly, the article 'Show of force' has 7635 characters. Of those, direct quotes run up to 2250. This is slightly better edited, as has only 5 occurrences of either "O'Day said", "O'Day declared", or "O'Day explained". Only an interview lets the main actor explain and declare things five times. 73.61.21.190 (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the first source from Elizabeth Holmes: https://money.cnn.com/2014/10/16/technology/theranos-elizabeth-holmes/ It says "She said" or "Holmes said" five times. It's not an interview either. --GRuban (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interview with the subject and is not an independent source: just PR blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Please don't drag me to your strawman. Whether one or 1,000 articles referenced by the article on Elizabeth Holmes is primary or secondary is besides the the point. There are certainly other articles and a few books about Holmes. That is not the case about O'Day. All you offered were: a profile of the high-schooler of the year from Quincy, a press release from her current PT job, another from her "fashion" company, and that's pretty much it.
Someone is paid for her PR; the question is: is that you? I mean, I was about to start counting what is the proportion of quotes in that article about Holmes, when I realized you wouldn't care about the result. The ball was on your field, and you were supposed to provide that number for comparison. But it looks like you are just trying to wear me off with those four press releases. 73.61.21.83 (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a standard .sig I use on VBulletin forums which runs "It's not that I don't understand what you're saying; it's that I don't agree with what you're saying." I am entirely satisfied that the articles from two significant reliable sources (one with national reach and impact) meet the GNG. They are by no means interviews or press releases, no matter how many times you claim so. You might also want to look over WP:NPA, because quite aside from that the subject doesn't have a paid PR flack just because it suits you to claim that as well, accusing other editors of that simply because they disagree with you violates it. Ravenswing 00:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I strongly encourage you to get an account. Besides the ability to nominate pages for deletion, without having other people help you, it will enable you to build up a reputation as a constructive editor, and will make your opinions be considered more by the closer of editing discussions like this one. Also unsubstantiated rumor says that on your first anniversary as an editor you get a personalized marzipan pony delivered by a flock of winged elves, who wouldn't want that? --GRuban (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete overly promotional with no actual show of notability by any existing criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essentially promotional, and there does not seem to be enough reason for notability to make it likely that a NPOV article would be possible. The proposed reliable references are the sort of interview which is not acceptable here, because it is not truly independent. The reason why we also look at actual accomplishments--which in this instance are really trivial, is to guage the possibility that some of the coverage might be genuine. When ostensibly reliable sources write about people with no significant positive (or negative) acomplishments, the only likely reason is PR. DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Delete - she is clearly not notable for WP:PROF, so it comes down to whether she is notable for media coverage independent of her lack of scientific notability. Looking at the references, most are inherently promotional, passing reference, not independent, non-reliable, not an indication of notability, (plus several of them don't actually say what they are cited to support). As already pointed out, this is a classic example of constructing a glorious narrative out of scattered passing reference. There are only three that merit closer scrutiny. The Ledger story to me is 'it's a slow news day so let's report on a local person doing something curious'. That leaves us with the Boston Globe stories, and while I can appreciate the argument that these alone are sufficient to make her notable, I just don't see it that way - two stories within a few months of each other about a local undergrad. Somebody looking for an article about young women in science went to the local uni and they sent her to the subject to be interviewed - she was simply an avatar of a category. Then they went back to the well a few months later. If this had been spread over more time, perhaps, if anyone outside of Boston had picked it up, yes, but to me this falls short of the level of coverage I would equate with notability. Agricolae (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2018 (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. SoWhy 15:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valiyullahi C.M Muhammad Aboobacker Musliyar

Valiyullahi C.M Muhammad Aboobacker Musliyar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N. The personal blogspot link is the only source of the article, also not found any reliable source on google. Godric ki Kothritalk to me 11:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 11:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 11:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2018 (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. Before renominating, consider the WP:ATD options given here and try to follow those instead. SoWhy 15:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Victor G. Durham

Victor G. Durham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO. Mobilread reference says that subject is not a real person. Do not see any proof of notability as a fictional character. Rogermx (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a fictional character, it may be the pseudonym of a real author, possibly actually called Hancock, H I Hancock or Harrie Irving Hancock [43]. There is coverage: [44] [45] [46] [47] (pp 78, 84, 85, 90) [48] and others. If the Submarine Boys series is the only thing for which this pseudonym was used, and there are no biographical details exclusively connected to the pseudonym, then this page should be merged and redirected to Submarine Boys or to the author, if he has an article. (H. Irving Hancock does have an article). Deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R. James500 (talk) 07:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Submarine Boys or possibly merge to H. Irving Hancock. I can't find coverage of the name except in passing while discussing the series and I can't find other work under the name so it's not independently notable. The article adds nothing to Submarine Boys as it stands, which suggests a redirect. The author may, as James500 suggests, be H. Irving Hancock. I don't see that in the source above ([49] - I have a limited preview) but it is stated here and the timing fits. If that's right, we should merge there. I'm struggling to find a second source so for now my default is to redirect to Submarine Boys and add a "...pseudonym...maybe Hancock..." bit at the top there, plus a link back from Hancock's page. › Mortee talk 02:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is on page 71 of "Newsboy". Snippet view will not let you see a photograph of this, but you can read it by searching for this or this, and snippet view will confirm that the text in question (that he is "probably hancock") is on page 71. Then, if you search for this inside the volume, you get confirmation that the H I Hancock in question is mentioned on page 71 (and several other pages) as well. Therefore he is probably the Hancock who is probably Victor Durham (unless there is another "Hancock" that I can't see on page 71, which seems unlikely). And I am under the impression that Hancock wrote similar books at the same time for the same publisher (Altemus). James500 (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2018 (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 08:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrolens

Ferrolens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Only 2 exact-word search results on Google Scholar, both of which are publications written by someone whose last name is very similar to the article creator's username (Markoulakis / Markoulw). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum field of magnet for context. — Newslinger talk 17:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 17:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON at absolute best. (There are a few more GS results for "Ferrocell", but a sizable fraction of those are false positives.) XOR'easter (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. As an alternative, the article could be renamed to Ferocell which does have greater technical and popular coverage. Looking closely though, this is something quite niche that has been highly promoted by its creators, promotion which includes this article. Without wishing to out anyone, it seems quite likely that the article is further promotional material generated by the inventors. Another possibility would be a merge (as a short mention) into ferrofluid which is the basis behind this invention. Lithopsian (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, salt and Redirect to Ferrofluid as WP:Too soon. Has not yet achieved notability, with little notice in science data bases. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

*Keep Whereas this related device magnetic viewing film has a lot of science references? Yah Right!! Antigap (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC) Also Newsfaker you are lying. It is called also ferrocell with thousands of instances plenty enough of references (you should also count the Hele-Shaw cell references on google since the ferrocell is A TYPE Hele-Shaw CELL . MOST IMPORTANT YOUR reasoning FOR YOUR AFD is an attempt for outing WP:OUTING WP:PRIVACY WP:HA AND THEREFORE THIS PARADE OF YOURS IS IRRELEVANT AND THIS AFD OFFICIALLY INVALID AND A VALID REASON FOR AN UNDELETION REQUEST JUST IN CASE... Antigap (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC) — Antigap (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What a pathetic arguement and reasoning ha ha ha ha! So since your nick name is Newslinger I can assume that your real name is Rumpelstilzchen! ha hahaa ha! Antigap (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2018 (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 merge to Miss World 2017. WP:ATDM and WP:PRESERVE are the stronger policy-backed arguments here. SoWhy 15:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

America's Miss World 2017

America's Miss World 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was deleted after I prodded it back in 2017, it was then recreated less than two weeks later (see logs). No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources, and the vast majority of the article sourcing goes back to their own website or social media. Searches haven't brought up much in the way of event coverage to justify a stand-alone article for this event. (Note: for transparency's sake I went by "PageantUpdater" as my username at the time of the original prod) ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  12:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. - MrX 🖋 13:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Miss World 2017] and create section for America with small portions of this article in it. This page alone has too much information but the Runner-Ups could be a part of the Miss World 2017 article. No reason to delete all of this, rather keep some on a new page Redditaddict69 (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should it be deleted or merged?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:54, 2 August 2018 (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. SoWhy 15:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jigar Joshi

Jigar Joshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does have inline citations and doesn't meet WP notability criteria BrantleyIzMe (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I don't have any issue with delation. But article indicate that, the person is recipient of Shayda Award and also a author of several books. It is also stated in the article that his works critically acclaimed by several critics. Thanks. --Gazal world (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Note that the nominator joined Wikipedia 15 days ago. --Gazal world (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I've been in WP since 2010. I created a new account two weeks ago since I couldn't access my other account so don't assume that I know nothing about WP. This is absurd. BrantleyIzMe (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BrantleyIzMe:My apologies. Gazal world (talk) 06:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At the current moment, no specific opinion has been noted
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Old City (Jaffa)

Old City (Jaffa) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is already an article called Jaffa, which could be seen as a duplicate of this. Nominated as per suggestion by User:Veritycheck here --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect for now - this would be a perfectly legitimate individual article, but as it is, it is an unwarranted contentfork - there isn't any point breaking these things out unless there is actually some content for it. Notability isn't the issue, it's WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Put money where my mouth is and did some early WP:SOFIXIT work. Obviously there's much more available - I self-generated, but there's all the content in the hebrew article to expand it. Have added some sources (though they are there to support specific things, but a couple have Sig Cov) As I said, notability is covered and my previous argument no longer holds water. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per WP:GEOLAND criterium #1. Also one of the prime tourist attractions of Tel Aviv-Yafo. We should consider a rename to Old Jaffa. It's the only only positive I can find in this nomination. gidonb (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A quick flick through some sources, (about 3/4 in English), had about 40% as the Old City, about 30% as Old Jaffa and 30% used both. Suspect a bold change probably was unjustified, but a discussion on it is probably worthwhile. Nosebagbear (talk)
Thank you, Nosebagbear. My suggestion was discussing the name. Without prejudice. gidonb (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well it seems to be a duplicate to me as the nomination version kinda repeats what's at new Jaffa. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:23, 4 August 2018 (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fall In!

Fall In! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NEVENT. The article only uses one primary source. Search yields no results. Gameinfirmary (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk)15:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk)15:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk)15:45, 2 August 2018 (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 08:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VJ Aarthi Ganesh

VJ Aarthi Ganesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:CREATIVE. Created by a single-purpose account who appears to have a close connection with the subject. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2018 (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. SoWhy 15:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VironIT

VironIT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article about a non-notable company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. MER-C 14:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 15:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:31, 2 August 2018 (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. SoWhy 15:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James S. Tarantin

James S. Tarantin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:BIO. He's spoken at some places (e.g. TEDx, which is not the same as TED) but I can't find any significant discussion of him in independent sources. Google search for "James S. Tarantin" comes up with 19 results, and "James Tarantin" search (187 unique results) is mostly mentions of him, places to buy his books, etc., but nothing substantive. ... discospinster talk 14:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:32, 2 August 2018 (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uneven

Uneven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable album. I failed to locate multiple reliable and independent sources that discuss the album significantly. The editor whose username is Z0 14:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 15:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 15:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apart from trivial listings, I can only find one brief mention in a book [53], not enough to satisfy WP:NALBUMS. A redirect is also possible, but the title is a common word and people searching for something "uneven" is unlikely to be looking for the album, and it would only cause confusion when redirected to Sieges Even. Hzh (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing but directory listings found, and Google Books hits are all false positives. The word "Uneven" is too generic for a redirect as Hzh pointed out. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 12:53, 9 August 2018 (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. Sandstein 08:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shayda Award

Shayda Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable award.No non-trivial coverage (other than mere mentions of recipients, when they confer it) about the award. ∯WBGconverse 14:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Award is notable and independent of subjects they are conferred. It is awarded by the Indian National Theatre. This award is covered by Trivedi, Ramesh. M. (2005) Gujarati Sahityano Itihaas. (History of Gujarati Literature). Ahmedabad: Adarsh Prakashan as referenced in the article which is book of history of literature (independent, non-trivial source). This award is also covered by several Gujarati sources but English references are scant because it is Gujarati literature award. -Nizil (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited.We need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.News-tickers about a conferral in three-four lines or scant mentions in a book hardly passes that. Please provide sources, accordingly.......∯WBGconverse 04:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nizil Shah: FYI Gujarati sources are fine. Sources do not have to be in English. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 18:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Indian National Theatre. I don't think the award itself merits a full article at this point because of the lack of notability (and apologies, but I can't really do a WP:BEFORE in Gujarati and claim to be able to understand it). That being said, if it is awarded by Indian National Theatre, which is for now can be presumed to be a notable subject unless it is challenged, surely it could be mentioned there and anything considered relevant could be brought over as an alternative to deletion. Then, if sources come to light and detailed notability worthy of an article's worth of content is established, an article could be recreated. Red Phoenix talk 00:26, 24 August 2018 (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of ions

List of ions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The list would be in the millions. Almost every coordination complex, every protein, every RNA, every DNA, every carboxylic acid... So the list should be deleted or the term "ion" should be restricted. Smokefoot (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The list of ions will be shorter than the list of inorganic compounds or organic compounds, because many compounds share one ion (like Cl− in NaCl or MgCl2) and many covalent compounds do not have ions (except for some biomolecules). Also, I think restricting the term "ion" would be a good idea. --Leiem (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. The majority of biomolecules, drugs, silicates, . . . . Agricolae (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One possible way forward would be to restrict to notable ions, i.e., those with articles of their own. Category:Ions has many entries, but it is not in the millions. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, a "bluelinks only" rule might be viable here. XOR'easter (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Millions is an exaggeration, but Category:Ions is vastly underused. Category:Proteins, Category:Peptides, Category:Hormones, Category:Neurotransmitters, Category:Drugs, Category:Silicates, Category:Nucleotides, Category:Nucleosides, Category:Phospholipids, Category:Steroids . . . . Some of these overlap, but in all of these categories and more, the items that actually represent chemicals are (almost) all ions, amounting to a count of existing pages that I suspect would easily top 10 thousand bluelink entries. Central to the problem is that there are two uses of 'ions': the technical definition that includes all of these groups of molecules, and the common-language usage, where one is referring to the relatively small charged compounds aren't also members of the above categories. This is a convenient usage, but is only a subset of those items that meet the formal definition of 'ions'. Without a limitation to the common usage, any list of ions would be unwieldy and unmanageable, yet I seriously doubt you could find a reliable source that gives a definition consistent with this limited use that would allow coherent criteria for what does and does not belong on an abbreviated list. Still, such a limited definition is clearly what is in mind on the List of ions page, the List of polyatomic ions page (also AfDed), and the table of 'common' ions on the ions page. I don't see how to get around this problem - if we use the formal definition it is unmanageable, but any attempt to formalize a common-usage definition would be editor-generated and somewhat arbitrary, rather than source-based. Agricolae (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wish that millions were an exaggeration, but I guess the number depends on definitions. Soil is comprised of ions. Intracellular fluids have lots of ions. As an inorganic chemist, we make it our business to be picky about simple things (and inevitably a little annoying, sorry). But take MgCl2 in water probably contains [Mg(H2O)6]2+ and [Mg(H2O)5Cl]+ and when this solution is vaporized (as in a mass spectrometer), many daughter ions are generated of the type [Mg(H2O)n]2+ and [Mg(H2O)nC]+. Then there might be conjugate bases such as [Mg(OH)H2O)5]+. And magnesium is one of the easy ones, try ferric or molybdates.
We may be talking past each other here. I am not questioning that there are millions of ionic compounds - from a biology perspective, with >30,000 proteins per species and millions of species, even if 90% of the proteins are identical, inter-species, that is still a whole lot of distinct ionic compounds. I just don't think there are millions of Wikipedia pages on ionic compounds. Agricolae (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I promise not to badger the list maker since the effort is well intentioned and perhaps my notions are esoteric or cranky. One idea: define simple anions as ≤5 non-H atoms and 1-, 2-, 3-. That kind of definition would caption the main ones sulfates, phosphates. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but it seems an arbitrary cutoff. You would catch a phosphate, but not a pyrophosphate. Agricolae (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some common ions would be excluded such as [Fe(CN)6]3− and Cr
2O2−
7. --Leiem (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Our page on buffer solution lists numerous ions that would be excluded by this cutoff, citric acid/citrate (C6H5O73-) plus the entire table of 'Common buffer compounds used in biology'. I don't see a delineation based on atom number being discriminating enough. Agricolae (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We need a definition that will exclude complex ions that would already be covered by an article on a closely related chemical eg stearate where the article is about substances that contain the entity, but not the ion, and which will be covered in stearic acid. However there are ions that are notable in their own right, that could appear in a list. The list should not include those topics found in list of inorganic compounds or Glossary of chemical formulas or Inorganic compounds by element. So we should keep a list like this, but have suitable inclusion criteria. Some idea of what could also go in here: Fluoroanion and Oxyanion but if we only allow blue links, it would stop the bloat possibility. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an indiscriminate list. There are literally thousands of ions and these would be better presented in various sub-groups. Ajf773 (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This would be a limitless list. If someone would like to recreate a list of some subset of all ions, I think it should first have clearly defined criteria for inclusion and also have clear consensus among editors that this criteria defines some useful encyclopedic purpose. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the criteria for inclusion in the first paragraph in order to restrict the list. The criteria can be changed after discussion. --Leiem (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a criteria just to artificially limit the size of the list to something manageable isn't rational. Limiting it to ions with only 5 atoms as you've proposed is entirely arbitrary. An important ion such as hexafluorophosphate, for example, will be excluded but an obscure one like GeO32- gets included. Why? Without any criteria that serves some useful encyclopedic purpose, the list has little value. Propose the criteria first, get consensus among other editors that it has value, and then (and only then) start making the list. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:14, 3 August 2018 (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. The merits of a possible merge can be firther discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Cathedral, Pazhanji

St. Mary's Cathedral, Pazhanji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTRAVEL. Includes POV like beautiful , true spiritual experience. We dont need its postal code or how to get there. Sources are Google searches, the website of the church and Facebook. » Shadowowl | talk 12:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - to let us focus on the notability issue I've made a number of changes to the page to remove some of the NPOV content, duplicative language, interesting ref formatting, connectivity paragraph etc etc. The primary website has extremely similar content to what the article had before I reworked it. I don't know which was drawing from which. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I could live with a merge to Pazhanji. Mangoe (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would be okay with a merge, however, per the below discussions
This was my initial impulse, but the lack of any independent sourcing rather overrode that. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we were accepting WP:GEOFEAT rather than WP:NCHURCH, which is not guaranteed, there still would not be sufficient sourcing (as provided at this point) to meet the very low barriers. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course we are, since WP:NCHURCH quite clearly refers to the organisation (i.e. parish etc; note it is part of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)) and this article quite clearly refers to the building. For a building as important as a cathedral for a major denomination, existence is pretty much all we need for a presumption of notability. That, to me, is common sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's heading more in the direction of a line in the diocese's article saying where the cathedral is and what it is called. Mangoe (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You could say that about any stub. There's always going to be more you can say about a cathedral. It just hasn't been said yet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, I could say anything about anything but it would usually be nonsense. In this case the problem is that there's all evidence at the moment that such a stub isn't going to be expanded for now because there isn't anything to expand it with. Usually cathedrals get articles because they are historic buildings in their own rights, and that's plainly not the case here. Mangoe (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Their Claim on the age is a lie. see my comment below. --DBigXray 12:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Simply being the seat of a diocese is not separately notable. Mangoe (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but that is not my entire argument. For years I have consistently argued for or against the notability of churches, based on a number of factors, and for that reason I think this house of worship is notable. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bearian, I reviewed your check list and The church fails the notability test even by your "own" standards, The age is disputed below and not precisely mentioned even by the church. --DBigXray 20:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, based on confusion about its age, and the need to source that fact, I'm withdrawing my !vote. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is for deletion, not keeping. I found no significant book sources. Mangoe (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NCHURCH requires that at least WP:GNG is satisfied, it doesn't give automatic notability for meeting any specific requirement. GNG is not, from the sources given thus far, satisfied. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think it is old ? see my reply below.
  • Merge: Delete the Keep votes in my opinion are based on the first impression of the title and a lack of research on this church and its coverage. the Cathedral fails WP:GNG spectacularly. Was only in news for wrong reasons [54] of animal abuse. The article itself was WP:PROMO and I removed the Facebook link from infobox and other spams. Per their own official website it is "few" hundred years old without any date, (How convenient). I would say they are trying to bluff, and the ambiguity regarding the age is deliberate as its suits the church. None of their claims about age should be taken seriously. It is a common tactic in this area, to attract more followers by fabricating the age of the church. --DBigXray 09:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever its age, the fact remains that it is a cathedral of a major denomination. Common sense would suggest that we keep such edifices. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi User:Necrothesp The declaration as a second church of diocese happened in 2015, which is fairly recent., Can you please point me to such a Policy on Churches. AFAIK GNG is important to be satisfied. If even the local media finds it not worth discussing, then why must Wikipedia, choose otherwise. --DBigXray 10:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • We don't always need a policy, you know. As someone who's been an editor here for many years, it always amazes me how many editors seem uncomfortable with doing anything unless a policy tells them to. It's rather sad, to tell you the truth. I reiterate, common sense would suggest that a co-cathedral is notable! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting Relist : the Consensus above is tilted on delete. The keep supporters have failed to give any verifiable justification. --DBigXray 09:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most of the arguments of a particular side, though enough in number, fails WP:AADD spectacularly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ∯WBGconverse 13:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GEOLAND. Cathedrals are legally recognised under ecclesiastical law (canon law). [For the avoidance of doubt, we should for this purpose take into account the laws made by a non-established church or government-in-exile, etc, provided it is sufficiently powerful to merit our attention.] There seems to be coverage [55], but I am having difficulty reading it as my browser doesn't support Malayalam. I think it is worth bearing in mind that the vast majority of books are not searchable online, and those that are mainly come from large university libraries in the USA, with all the systematic bias that implies. WP:NRVE says that if offline sources are likely to exist, we do not delete. In the case of a historic church or cathedral in India, I think we can infer that it is likely. Finally, I must point out that WP:IAR is still policy, and if we are satisfied this building is a Syrian Orthodox cathedral, then not having an article on it would prevent us from improving and maintaining the project, which is forbidden by said policy. And AADD is an essay, so what it says carries very little weight. James500 (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC) I did find a book in English: [56]. There are also images in Google Images (the building looks large and impressive), and the building is a verifiable source for its own design. James500 (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it satisfies GEOLAND - it's a physical thing, not a populated location. You might have meant WP:GEOFEAT, but I haven't seen criterion 1 satisfied in its several aspects, and criterion 2 definitely hasn't been met. (Criterion 3 not applicable). To use IAR as a justification requires strong consent that nothing else should apply, and bluntly, the lack of anything about it that can be trusted makes it hard for me to know whether it's something worth bypassing the rules to improve the encyclopedia. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I meant GEOLAND. This is a place or location in the sense that we are talking about an area of land whose co-ordinates are not going to change. This is not like a vehicle or vessel that can move. [The area for a church will normally extend to the boundary wall of the graveyard, as they normally have one.] To try to make a distinction between bricks and the soil beneath and around them seems to me to be unjustifiable. This place is populated in the sense that there are lots of people there. I appreciate that GEOLAND is primarily aimed at villages, but the ordinary meaning of the expression populated place is much broader than that, and I have to infer that the choice of words is deliberate. James500 (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A distinction between bricks and the land it is on is made in almost all walks of life and within Wikipedia. That isn't the definition of populated at all, otherwise any building which had a reasonable number of people would qualify, such as a medium-size office block. WP:GEOFEAT wouldn't be necessary if such an inclusive viewpoint of GEOLAND was implemented. Its presence distinctly indicates that being a fixed location with people usually within is not a notability grounds. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. GEOFEAT appears to be for locations that are not legally recognised. A medium-size office block is not legally recognised and would not qualify for GEOLAND for that reason. A cathedral, on the other hand, is legally recognised under canon law. This line of reasoning would not make GEOFEAT redundant. James500 (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:GEOLAND or WP:GEOFEAT does not apply here, one can argue to apply WP:NBUILD here but again NBUILD require significant coverage hence it fails NBUILD as well. --DBigXray 11:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, GEOLAND does apply. James500 (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@James500: @DBigXray:It doesn't. Lets take a look at GEOLAND criteria :
Criteria Applies to this article
Populated, legally recognized places No, it is not a place, it is a building.
Populated places without legal recognition Again, not a place, but a building
Disputed regions This is not a disputed region.
Named natural features Named NATURAL features.
It does not apply. GEOFEAT#2 is the only criteria that can apply to this. » Shadowowl | talk 16:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Pazhanji - the village in which the church is located. My thoughts: WP:GEOLAND and WP:GEOFEAT don't apply. This is a building, not a village or mountain or lake. I find it difficult to find any unaffiliated reliable sources containing coverage of this church. Even the diocese has no article Kunnamkulam diocese. However, the self-published material can support the inclusion of the information/text in another article, which I merit should should be the village in which this church is located. We have many articles on populated places that have sections on a particular (but not notable in the WP sense) building. Why not this as well? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would not oppose a merger per Carlossuarez46, whose wisdom and experience I trust. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the new merge proposal that should satisfy both keep and delete !voters
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 15:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus seems to be that this is notable, and while ideally I'd like to have more than three participants, it's already been relisted twice and I don't think things are going to change. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hel (band)

AfDs for this article:
Hel (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band. The best source I can find is just a passing mention in this book. This band has been around since the 2000s, making the usual "there might be sources in non-digital content" claim slightly implausible. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. The editor whose username is Z0 13:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first would suggest that there was a greater level of coverage on presumably a controversial aspect of the band, which would be linked to the second. Hzh (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there truly was coverage, it wouldn't be difficult to locate reliable and independent sources to establish notability, which must not be based on assumptions. The sources you provided do not satisfy the notability criteria for both general or music. Presuming there exists a greater level of coverage is et suppositio nil ponit in esse. The editor whose username is Z0 14:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've already added the part about the era (yes, archiving of news sources to be made available for search on the internet is a real issue, a problem encountered in many articles), and the issue with WP:INTERVIEW is more nuanced and the concern is more about WP:PROMOTION. Hzh (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(comment, not argument) It's not necessarily easy to locate sources in Swedish, because you have to wade through a lot of false positives. "Hel", in addition to being a core figure in Norse mythology (from which the group got the name), also means "whole", "entire", "intact", "complete" etc, and is used in many idioms. It's a very common word no matter what you combine it with, even though the band (WP:IKNOWIT) was not insignificant in their genre back then.
With that said, no matter the potential difficulty, we need to have sources and verifiability or we can't have an article, of course. /Julle (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This band appears to have had a significant enough impact on the early 2000s viking metal scene to meet the notability standard. It's somewhat difficult to track down sources in part because there are at least three European metal bands called Hel. Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2018 (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. SoWhy 15:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Ikwan

Jay Ikwan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:MBIO. The editor whose username is Z0 13:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hello,

Thank you for your input to making wikipedia a better research center. I perfectly understand where you are coming from , however, please consider the following points

1. Aba, Abia State Nigeria where the artiste is from has little or no representation on the Internet with regards to music. Will it not be great to actually receive articles that speak about what has been going on in this city in Nigeria ?

The artiste in question has a solid reputation and is a notable public figure in the South East of Nigeria.

WP:GNG I believe that the article should not be deleted because the history of this artiste's work can be attested by a lot of residents of Aba, Abia State, Nigeria. One of wikipedia's aims as an encyclopedia is to give information that is lacking on the internet. Jay Ikwan spent most of his life as a South Eastern Artiste in Nigeria and his works might not have gain popularity in mainstream media but he is highly celebrated and his catalogue speaks volumes. When Jay Ikwan and most artistes from Aba where on the charts, they had no access to mainstream media. It would only be right that artistes from the South East of Nigeria are given the same platform as artistes from Lagos Nigeria. Another artiste that is experiencing this too is an artist called Ruffcoin Nwaba. He is arguably the King of Popular Music in the South East of Nigeria and his name actually means Ruffcoin the Son of Aba. There is however no article on wikipedia talking about him as well.

I believe the article should stay and I think if you conduct your research, you would agree with me as well. Residents of the South East of Nigeria will have a breath of fresh air that they are properly represented as well on Wikipedia and not just artistes from Lagos and Enugu in Nigeria.

WP:MBIO. Irrespective of the fact that Jay Ikwan has had massive rotations on radio in Nigeria and continues to have same, Jay Ikwan is on rotation with BBC Radio and Voice FM right now with his latest song Skittish and was infact Southampton Home Grown Hit between 26th to July 1st of August. This hereby qualifies him and he meets this requirements as well.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have reliable and independent sources to back up your claims? The editor whose username is Z0 07:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply Zo, The reliable source I believe you are referring to in this matter is mainstream media coverage. It is difficult to get this because up until recently, artistes from south east nigeria did not have this as much as artistes from Lagos. The only proof of their work is how far their catalogues date. Many of them dont even have their recorded works on digital music platforms like itunes, spotify etc because they sold physical copies of records, cd's and vinyls. This is the number one problem artistes from South East Nigeria has faced. Jay Ikwan is not the only one that has been affected by this. There are actually even more bigger artistes that sold millions of records but cannot be found on wikipedia and it is shocking. The likes of musical legends in Nigeria like the late Junior of Junior & Pretty and his bandmate Pretty who served as the president of Performing Musicians Association of Nigeria between (31 October 2014 – 1 August 2017 ), he does not have a Wikipedia article even though they shaped the music Industry. The problem has been the lack of mainstream media coverage. Blogs and independent bloggers were the ones that gave voice to this range of artistes.

As you can see, It is very difficult to provide mainstream historical evidence of artistes like this. The only fair way to judge their works is by their catalogue and how far it dates. It is only fair.

Regarding WP:MBIO, Please visit VoiceFM Radio 103.9 https://www.voicefmradio.co.uk/playlist/ and you can see clearly that as we speak, Jay Ikwan is on the playlist alongside David Guetta , Donel , Arctic Monkey, Childish Gambino – Summertime Magic, ZAYN and others.

Also visit BBC Radio http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/introducing/entries/2b9d40ad-6d31-4106-940a-c62227918ca9 and he has been playlisted and keeps getting rotations both on Radio 6 and Solent BBC .

If you need clarity in any area, please let me know and thank you for your contributions to making wikipedia an excellent encyclopedia. I appreciate the efforts people like you put into this. Momuzik (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: @Momuzik You're missing the purpose and eligibility of content of Wikipedia. It's funny because I use to be like this some time back. Wikipedia is not a place to push agendas such as if muslims have this, Christians must have this; or if whites have this, blacks must have this; Or if yoruba films have this, Hausa films must have it too. Addition of content is strictly by passing the Wikipedia guidelines, in this case WP:MUSICBIO. I don't agree with your suggestion of bias towards Igbo/Southeastern musicians. There are no source for Jay Ikwan because he hasn't been discussed significantly in multiple reliable sources. The likes of Flavour N'abania, Phyno, Kcee (musician), etc didn't start from Lagos, yet they have been discussed in WP:RS. There are many reliable media houses situated in the South East, if he was notable they would have written about him multiple times. If you are truly passionate about pushing this agenda to have an effect on Wikipedia then I suggest you write to the media houses to cover Igbo artists based in Igboland more. It is not Wikipedia's job to do that for you. HandsomeBoy (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HandsomeBoy Thank you for your contribution. While I appreciate your view and I respect it, I disagree with you because the artistes you mentioned are from Enugu but ended up in Lagos to get the mainstream media coverage you are so eager about. I am talking about artistes from other parts. Jay Ikwan started in Aba but is no longer there as well. He is now in England and has been covered repeatedly by the biggest media house here, the British Broadcasting Corporation and is currently on their playlist. Yet it isnt enough for you. It is clear that there were no media houses covering music materials majorly in the south east. Your judgemental and belittling approach is highly disturbing , unprofessional as well and your comparison of christians versus muslims in a music article is even more disturbing. I am not pushing any agenda at all, far from it . Neither is it anybody's fault. I am simply trying to contribute an information that is lacking on Wikipedia. Also, why do you keep using the word "agenda" while referring to me ? Feel free to delete the article if you are so passionate about deleting it. It has zero effect on the artiste itself rather it is one more credible article lost for Wikipedia which is quite a shame. It's not really worth the back and forth debate. Thanks for your hard work.

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) 19:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bed Talks

Bed Talks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability. TheLongTone (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 14:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roula Partheniou

Roula Partheniou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing to suggest that this person passes WP:ARTIST TheLongTone (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I was afraid this was going to happen when I saw the article this morning. The article is terrible and looks like it's been written by the studio intern. I'm pretty sure I can fix it though. Give me a few hours. I haven't got time now. One note about Nothing to suggest that this person passes WP:ARTIST: Criterion #3 states "for example, a book". Such a book exists. I have listed it under the bibliography. The publisher, Black Dog has sadly gone under but was highly regarded as a publisher of artist monographs (among other things). Vexations (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Similarly to Vexations , looking at the section of the CV (which shouldn't be a source at all), under Publications/Press, shows that she likely has signicant coverage from periodicals and exhibition materials. Curiocurio talk) contribs) 21:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment CV source replaced with more independent source.96.127.244.201 (talk) 03:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Verification failed on the MAC claim.96.127.244.201 (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2018 (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 consensus and sources indicating that WP:ARTIST has been satisfied (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Dyment

Dave Dyment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can see nothing to suggest that this person passes WP:ARTIST TheLongTone (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also mentioned fr his curatorial work in the Globe and Mail here and here, and in Art on Paper here, as an artist in C Magazine here, and an excellent critical review in the Queens Journal here. And here is a significant review in the Toronto Star of his artwork. That's enough for me, so I will say keep.96.127.244.201 (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 14:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avro Anson RI-003

Avro Anson RI-003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot see why this individual aircraft passes WP:GNG. TheLongTone (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It passes GNG because the article cites two independent reliable sources with substantial coverage. Surprisingly, this particular aircraft seems rather famous in Indonesia: there is even a memorial to it. Now, wikinotability doesn't care about memorials but it does care about sources. Meeting the GNG criteria only provides a presumption for an article, not a guarantee, so if you'd like to come back with a further reason for a deletion I'll say if I agree. Thincat (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to Avro Anson I find it peculiar that there's no mention of this aircraft in the main article, so there's a problem, but the few sentences could easily be merged into it in the various appropriate places. Mangoe (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2018 (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. No clear consensus to merge. Can be discussed on talk page. SoWhy 15:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Table-glass

Table-glass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, current article consists of a bunch of trivia, legends and other dubious statements, with no reliable sources with extensive coverage of the subject. Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not kidding at all. Many (though not all) articles in the category you mentioned have at least some useful references which can be used to verify some of the claims about the article's subject, but this particular glassware object does not. All of the references I've found (and I've searched for a long time) were 100% self-published "fairy tales" which aren't very encyclopedic, per WP:SPS and WP:UGC, and I highly doubt that adding some tag like "refimprove" and leaving this article as it is would be useful to anyone (especially seeing that no one else could improve it in meaningful ways in YEARS after this article's creation). Even Russian Wiki admits that the origin of this particular glassware is "unknown" and it also consists of a bunch of trivia and "legends"/theories (Which is ok for that Wiki because most people there don't care about silly things like WP:V or WP:GNG). But hey, it is still possible that I overlooked some sources and maybe this nomination will work much better to encourage someone else to find some useful, reliable sources (and not just another unproven theories about who created it or when or why exactly it has so many facets), in which case I will only be glad. If not - it should be deleted and only recreated when such sources will be found by someone.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 03:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 03:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 03:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 03:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 03:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 03:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the glass came to symbolise the Soviet era; it's a notable cultural icon. The glass was called a "design classic" by Financial Times here: "After the second world war, more than 500m glasses were made each year to be used everywhere, from the Kremlin to prisons". K.e.coffman (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another source: Nothing humbler than the tumbler: 5 facts about the legendary Soviet glass. "Sept. 11 is the anniversary of the ubiquitous but humble Soviet glass tumbler. The sturdy, bulky and convenient everyday item became a symbol of the Soviet era, and was popular among housewives and alcoholics alike. While it has been largely replaced by more elegant vessels, it is still in use."
Perhaps the article should be moved to Bevelled glass (drinkware) or Bevelled tumbler. "Table-glass" is an odd name. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The RBTH source that you provided is as unreliable as the current links on the article page - it is full of unsourced myths and assumptions, and even it claims that "There are no official documents proving Mukhina's authorship but in 1943 she headed the Leningrad Artistic Glass Workshop, so the creation of the renowned glass is usually attributed to her". Same goes for Financial Times article - it's just a reprint of theories/myths. Even the year of production is dubious because it's not mentioned anywhere on the official factory's site (or any other historical documents). And as far as all those myths/theories go, there are even sources which assume that this specific glassware was actually invented on US territory (based on some paintings and on glass pressing technology used for manufacturing such glassware). Should we use THAT myth/assumption too (and remove the "Russian inventions" category from this article's page)? Or should we just try to stick to verifiable facts from reliable sources (such as official museum pages, official manufacturer pages or some historical publications)? And if we can't find those - why not to simply remove all those "fairy tales", or (and I am being serious here) just rename the article into "Myths and theories about granyonyi stakan"? Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : That glass does not "symbolise the Soviet era"! It never did. It might "sympolise" (i.e. bring back memories of) past times in the former USSR, but this type of glass was omnipresent around Europe, western and eastern. -The Gnome (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems a growing viewpoint that notability is established, but an unneeded ContentFork has been mooted as an alternate reason for deletion/merging
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge to Tumbler (glass). My searching for granyonyi stakan found lots of hits, but they're almost all to sites like pintrest, ebay, or etsy where you can see pictures of these, or buy them. None of that satisfies WP:RS. I'm satisfied that this does have some cultural significance, so adding something to the parent article makes sense. A wholesale merge of all the content would violate WP:UNDUE, so just bring over the most significant (and sourced) things. Don't forget to repoint the existing Granyonyi stakan redirect. I suspect this argument applies to pretty much everything in List of glassware and Template:Glassware, but that's another AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2018 (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. SOFTDELETE per low participation. North America1000 01:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

South Sudan Equatorians Association Inc.

South Sudan Equatorians Association Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced article about a subject that doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:56, 2 August 2018 (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. North America1000 01:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 IQA European Games

2017 IQA European Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NEVENT. Has no reliable sources. » Shadowowl | talk 11:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2018 (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) 19:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Millennia

Ten Millennia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot see how this passes WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG. Promotional article created by a WP:SPA with a likely COI. Edwardx (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is not enough secondary coverage to justify inclusion, and what is sourced in the article is mostly to primary sources. Catrìona (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2018 (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) 19:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alfeeya Shaikh

AfDs for this article:
Alfeeya Shaikh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NARTIST. ∯WBGconverse 10:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2018 (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. czar 02:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rajatsubhra Majumdar

AfDs for this article:
Rajatsubhra Majumdar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable poet.No significant coverage in reliable media. ∯WBGconverse 10:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:42, 2 August 2018 (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. SoWhy 15:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ShuttleCloud

ShuttleCloud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable start up. A plethora of sources does not automatically make notability. This is one of many ostensibly paid articles by creator blocked per log entry: 12:53, August 2, 2018 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs | block) blocked Ryanckulp (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia: 10 out of 16 of his creations have been deleted for advertising and/or suspected UPE. He has even recreated an article under different names to avoid salts, and has asked other users to remove CSD templates). 10 out of 16 spam creations deleted already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Judging independently of the paid editing issues, the topic simply doesn't meet notability guidelines. There are typical brief mentions and announcements but nothing that would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Wish there was a way to mass delete UPE articles without the need to go through AfD. Would save us a lot of work. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as mentioned above, all the reliable sources don't satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH (both in article and elsewhere). Even in terms of routine mentions etc, it's pretty thin on the ground Nosebagbear (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello everyone, thanks for bringing this topic to our attention. I'd love to help you resolve the issue: ShuttleCloud is one of the only companies integrated natively within consumer Gmail [1] and is part of the INC 5000 [2]. Ryan Kulp is an ex employee. I'm a first time wikipedia user and I'll gladly follow your advice to avoid deletion.

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEeorOjbbNU&t=38s
  2. ^ https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2017/08/16/chicago-companies-on-the-2017-inc-5000.html
Thanks for the comments. The first reference is a video on YouTube showing how it integrates with Gmail. This is neither a reliable source or evidence of notability to satisfy Wikipedia standards. The second is from BizJournals which while reliable, is only a list which the company is included with. The Inc. 5000 does not infer notability for all companies on the list. ShuttleCloud will need to meet the guidelines found in WP:NCORP, including showing significant coverage in WP:RS which meet WP:CORPDEPTH. My search was unable to find any that would suffice. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2018 (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. SoWhy 15:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Feigenbaum

Mark Feigenbaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. Non notable by definition. Reference's are for the most part name drops scope_creep (talk) 06:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Source searches are providing name checks and passing mentions, but nothing of substance about the subject himself. Also qualifies for deletion as per WP:NOTRESUME. North America1000 18:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Does being appointed FCPA satisfy ANYBIO #1 or the "fellow" criteria of PROF? If not, why not? James500 (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No. These are industrial certifications, signifying length of experience, usually 15 years, and you automatically become a fellow if you can prove you've had 15 years of good experience. Fellow in the above instance you have mentioned, is being elected into a learned society. The process is of election by a peer group. It is much more stringent, with your whole work experience and quality of that experience checked by the peer group committee, and then the election is taken place. But it is more than that. The crux of it is the question of creation or discovery of something that never existed before, e.g. electricity. Accountancy is an industrial practice, that uses industrial processes, that have underwent quick evolution at the beginning and largely became unchanged, as they were proven to work. For the Fellows of the Royal Society, it is new. One example that struck me, was a programme about how the small red breasted bird species called the Robin get around. It uses spooky action at distance to navigate. The person who discovered that is likely to become a Fellow and get an article on here. Hope that helps. scope_creep (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2018 (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 10:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark J. Blechner

Mark J. Blechner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a collection of article BY the person in question not ABOUT the person in question. Also appears to be a significant COI. I see only two passing mentions on Google news about this person. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:28, 9 August 2018 (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. SoWhy 15:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Appleby (American football)

Robert Appleby (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NBASE and WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 06:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article was prematurely nominated for deletion about 75 minutes after the initial stub was created. The article has now been fleshed out a bit and has sufficient coverage to satisfy the WP:GNG bar. Cbl62 (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the sources added and it is all local interest routine coverage. Hardly enough to show he meets the naotability requirements so my nomination stands. GNG requires in depth coverage and this isn't enough I believe. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. Articles like this 16-paragraph piece, reviewing his career at length, are the antithesis of WP:ROUTINE coverage. And bear in mind that the article was just created today. Cbl62 (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a piece in the Decateur daily review about the new coach for Milikin University in Decateur. It is essentially a biography of the new local coach which you will find in any local newspaper when a new coach arrives in town and he stayed for 1 season as head coach for the football team. He clearly doesn't meet WP:NSPORTS as his career is not sufficiently impressive to get a pass, if this kind of source is considered sufficent to get in on a GNG pass why not but I do not believe it does. If you had more recent sources to show that his contribution to coaching had made as per WP:ANYBIO "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" then again why not, but don't forget his football coaching career went downhill from head university coach for 1 year, assistant college coach for 3 years, to high school coach for 25 years. From what I can see his long high school career was not crowned with success. This is really not the stuff of encyclopedias IMHO. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Appleby was a head coach in two sports at three American universities for nine years from 1949 to 1957, and yes head coaches at American universities usually do receive sufficient press to pass WP:GNG. See Head coach AfD library. I wish more AfD nominators could just keep an open mind. When you nominated the article, it was an unsourced 2-sentence stub. Seeing its development, many would simply say, "Ok, there's more here than I thought." Cbl62 (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As the sources were added I looked at them but as I said not convinced by them. I don't mind withdrawing when I think I'm wrong but as I do not see him meeting GNG and no where near meeting NSPORT I'll let it ride and see what happens. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This one troubled me for some reason, so I went through the sources: the Courier News, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Chicago Tribune, Decatur Herald "Once over lightly" and "Commies, Appleby Whip All-Stars", "Appleby gets Toledo U post", arkbaseball.com, "Appleby to Varsity", "Schools Reopen" and his obituary are all short articles/trivial mentions/routine sports coverage and don't count towards notability, as per general sporting article consensus. Baseball-reference does not count towards notability either, and the Toledo media guide is a primary source. This leaves "Kurth Comments," which profiles Appleby in the context of the fact he was a high school football coach - not the context of his notability as a college coach, and the "Robert Appleby new Millikin Grid Coach," which is the best source, but given the era in which this was written a long article about a new football coach in the small town wouldn't be all abnormal. Hard to find other sources that would get this over the line. Fails WP:GNG.
Even though this is a pre-Internet figure whose greatest fame came at Toledo (a city whose newspaper archives are not accessible on-line to my knowledge), we've already got in-depth biographical coverage from two different media outlets -- the Kurth profile from 1968 and the Decatur Herald profile from 1951. Not sure what "general sporting article consensus" you're referring to. My understanding of consensus is very different. The consensus I'm aware of is that passing mentions are deemed routine, but not articles of substance focused on the subject. Further on the topic of consensus, head football coaches at US colleges/universities generally receive plenty of coverage to pass GNG, as reflected in the results found at "Head coach AfD library". Cbl62 (talk) 01:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article, he was only an assistant at Toledo. I disagree with you on the Kurth profile, which is a story about him as a high school football coach - there are many feature articles of this type written about high school coaches all over the country. The in-depth profile from 1951 is okay, though again I'm concerned it's in the context of him getting hired. I've looked through the AfDs and the arguments there continue to assume college coaches are notable under WP:GNG simply because coverage gets generated - an AfD like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. C. Riley mentions WP:CFPCOACH, which seems to be a very inclusionist essay, and it appears this project continually interprets WP:MILL sources as passing WP:GNG (for instance, I would've voted delete on Riley.) (Keep in mind I'm mostly active in other football codes and am basing my interpretation off of articles from those sports.) SportingFlyer talk 02:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He was head baseball coach at Toledo for 3 years. As for WP:MILL, it is an essay reflecting a deletionist view that IMO is inconsistent with WP:GNG -- indeed, it is an effort to override GNG with a subjective assessment of "importance" or "uniqueness" rather than "notability". Cbl62 (talk) 06:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Head college baseball coaches need to pass WP:GNG as there's no presumption of notability. Looking through everything, I'd nominate a couple other Toledo coaches as well for an AfD. I understand WP:MILL is an essay, but I disagree about "importance" or "uniqueness". Keep in mind WP:ROUTINE is policy, and synthesizing an article off of routine sports announcements isn't commonly accepted as WP:GNG, at least in other sports projects I've been associated with. SportingFlyer talk 07:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While the coverage here is beyond the routine (e.g., passing mentions in game coverage), this article concerns a person, not an event. WP:ROUTINE is part of the notability standard on "events". No such limitation is found in either WP:GNG's non-event standards or in WP:PERSON. Cbl62 (talk) 07:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE does actually get a passing mention in a footnote in WP:PERSON. The trouble is that this kind of coverage would not get a pass on GNG for other biographies outside of college sports regardless of the period. There is presumption from the college sports projects that all head coaches get a pass because there must be coverage out there even if it can't be found. This is the basis of NGRIDIRON but for much higher profil coaches. I am also concerned that the arguments used on these deletion discussions are mostly based on project guidelines rather than community guidelines and you only have to have a couple of members of the project to vote keep each time. One could argue as to whether the article in the Decateur paper is not simply trivia, I agree with SportingFlyer that this kind of coverage is systematic for a new local coach. He only stayed for 1 season so did not make a lasting impression as a football coach. This is really a pretty ordinary coach. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage surpasses the definition of "routine" (essentially basic sports scores and statistics) and therefore is WP:NOTROUTINE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've always understood WP:ROUTINE to mean articles that would almost always be written, for instance a person getting a promotion, and at least over at Wikiproject Soccer articles such as transfer announcements, contract signings and game articles (articles that would be written about any player in the position) are frequently interpreted as not being enough to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 05:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've always understood passing mentions in game coverage and mere announcements (injuries, releases, trades, hirings, firings) to be routine, but articles that go into details of someone's career are the opposite of routine. Cbl62 (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you - but under that guideline, that leaves only one good article (Millikin hiring) and one article about him as a high school coach (Kurth) - and high school coaches (even ones who get lots of coverage) don't typically tend to have articles per what we're not, if I'm not mistaken? SportingFlyer talk 06:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At minimum, the Kurth, Decatur Herald, and The Norman Transcript pieces have sufficient detail so as to be considered not routine. That's pretty solid for a pre-Internet era coach. If we had access to the Toledo Blade archives, there would certainly be even more. Cbl62 (talk) 06:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the Norman Transcript piece doesn't show notability since it's an obituary - and while obituaries can be notable as long as they are independent of the subject, this looks to be an obituary that's been submitted by someone close to/not independent of the subject. The clue is in the second sentence where it discusses when the memorial service will be. The Kurth article makes me nervous since it's a profile of him as a high school coach, evident with the mention of the team's schedule, and the article's placement on the high school sports page. Per WP:YOUNGATH, most of this type of coverage is treated as WP:ROUTINE for notability purposes. I know I'm arguing against consensus here, but I really don't see Mr. Appleby's notability based on the available sources. I'm also not certain a Toledo paper will have significant coverage of him, though I agree it might - I'll have a look now for sources. SportingFlyer talk 09:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked for additional sources but I still don't think this comes close to WP:GNG for the reasons discussed above. SportingFlyer talk 00:30, 9 August 2018 (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. In the end, none of the keep !voters could demonstrate that significant coverage exists. SoWhy 15:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Nationalist Party

Canadian Nationalist Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NORG not even a registered political party but a group claiming to be a party Dom from Paris (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is more of a groupuscule than anything else. If you have that good coverage it would be interesting to add it here or directly to the page, I had a look and could only find anecdotal stuff. Maybe when they are actually registered it would be worth having a page but until then I don't think they meet notability requirements. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the Canadian Nationalist Party is one guy, Travis Patron, and as such the article should be deleted per WP:BLP1E. Here are some writeups about Patron's single event: [64] [65] [66] Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete too soon for this article, but recreating it when the party becomes officially registered seems like it would be good.desmay (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This group, which aspires to become a registered political party, has a valid, albeit controversial platform which will elicit protests from those who do not share its views. It is notable simply for the policy position it has taken, which challenges the more established parties. The group has garnered some media attention. The Wikipedia article should be kept in the interests of dialogue and freedom of expression. If the group is not successful in obtaining registration as an official political party, the article can eventually be taken down. Nathan Detroit (talk • contribs) 20:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)— Nathan Detroit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - The party has been in the news, both locally, and nationally, for an event in Winnipeg, which resulted in Police being called after an altercation with counter-protestors, and the Belgian Club withdrawing from the year's Folklorama event.[1] WpgJets4Life (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/belgian-club-pulls-out-of-folklorama-following-canadian-nationalist-party-controversy-1.4036749
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON I think. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Canadew (talk) The party is nearing federal party status once it achieves the 250 confirmed responses of membership confirmations. In addition, it is likely that many members of the party will take to social media outlets and report this deletion as "censorship", thus only giving the party more traction and publicity, something that overexaggerators and opposition of the party should take note of.

— Canadew (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This is not a concern for Wikipedia editors we discuss notability and whether subjects meet the guidelines or not. Wikipedia is not censored. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They are an active political platform which is currently growing and discussing policies to bring forth into the Canadian political arena. They meet the requirements to become a party minus the acceptance by parliament. Keep as a historical reference even if they don't become registered. Even if the party does not succeed to become registered this year, there is a good chance they will remain active and continue to apply until they are registered.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajdoge (talk • contribs) 08:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)— Ajdoge (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete There are plenty of small far-right organizations in Canada. Them attempting to organize one event doesn't break the WP:BLP1E barrier, and agree WP:TOOSOON applies. Basically, there's no need to lend credence to every person who claims he's founding a federal party when he hasn't actually run any candidates in elections under that banner. Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There doesn't seem to be the kind of in depth coverage in reliable sources that are required to demonstrate notability to Wikipedia's standards. Certainly no objection to re-creating the article when/if notability is achieved. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2018 (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) 19:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Kent Apuada

Clark Kent Apuada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NSPORT beating one championship record Phelps set when he was 10 is not enough. A case of TOOSOON Dom from Paris (talk) 05:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2018 (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. The "keep" opinions do not address the problems identified with the sources. Sandstein 08:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Medeiros

Pedro Medeiros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, only an interview and a blog post. Vexations (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those new sources are not about the subject. One compares his pixel art tutorials to Disney's twelve principles of animation, and that is not serious commentary. The other only has that Pedro Medeiros is asking for donations on Patreon fir his tutorials. Vexations (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Vexation's analysis of the new sources are on point. And I also feel that the article is TOOSOON. But if it has the potential to grow in the near future, I suggest it to be moved into AfC draftspace, so that the author can modify and publish it when the time comes. EROS message 10:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:56, 11 August 2018 (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. Consensus is "delete" by strength of arguments. Although it has been proven his name is mentioned as he has worked on high-profile cases, in no instance was in-depth coverage of the topic presented. There needs to be in-depth coverage, either biographical or in-depth discussion *directly* about his work in order to demonstrate notability. This individual may yet become notable, but it appears they are not at this point. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jovan Blacknell

Jovan Blacknell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a competent and accomplished lawyer, though this Wikipedia article fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Except for a paragraph in this source, there is trivial coverage in reliable sources. An online search for biographical details returned many mentions of his name, though little else. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep an online search returned many mentions of his name because he is a notable criminal defense attorney who has handled several high profile cases, similar to the notability for other criminal defense attorneys on Wikipedia, see Ian Wallach for example.--JumpLike23 (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it doesn't look like there are any sources which cover him significantly and in-depth - mostly simply mentions that he's the lawyer on the case in crime articles - which fails WP:GNG in spite of his high profile work. SportingFlyer talk 03:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should be kept because he is notable as a criminal defense attorney. He handled a case that received international coverage, the Hamilton case and he has handled several high profile murder cases in Los Angeles. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.197.73.6 (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 15:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BASIC specifically requires secondary sources. Also, "multiple legal cases" doesn't make someone notable - then any run-of-the-mill attorney would be notable. We need coverage of him, not mentions of him in articles talking about a different case. I'm also concerned about the high numbers of IP addresses voting keep. SportingFlyer talk 03:06, 26 August 2018 (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. Despite claims to the contrary, in-depth independent coverage about the subject has not been shown to exist. As for WP:NEXIST, that part of the guideline also says once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface and despite almost three weeks passing, Kaytsfan has not followed up on their claim.

However, those in favor of keeping might be willing to create an article about the "Without a Trace" campaign that is likely notable. If and when such an article exists, this article can be restored and merged into such an article about the campaign, restoring most of the information. SoWhy 15:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vadivel Nimalarajah

Vadivel Nimalarajah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I genuinely feel bad nominating this for deletion, but I don't see any indication that this specific person is independently notable. Most if not all of the coverage I was able to located about Nimalarajah was trivial, in the context of an International Federation of Journalists campaign about missing journalists, Without a Trace. Even then, mentions of Nimalarajah are almost all trivial name-drops in lists of the missing. It's possible that the overall Without a Trace campaign might be notable (although we don't presently have an article about it), but I just don't see an indication that Nimalarajah is. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep created this article in 2009 passes WP:GNG and WP:LASTING there is continued coverage in reliable sources about the subject even after so many years The Island in 2013 Sri Lanka Brief 2017 ,Free Media Movement 2014 and the BBC ,Human Rights Watch ,Amnesty International ,The Island ,Home Office UK Border Agency,UNESCO have all covered his disappearance if needed the title can be changed to Disappearance of Vadivel Nimalarajah .Now one area this is not totally covered here is the Tamil Language media including the Uthayan newspaper for whom he worked.His newspaper has written about him.Without the coverage of the Sri Lankan media in particular the regional Tamil and Sinhala media hence would disagree that the coverage is trivial particularly a journalist or media person death or disappearance is well documented and WP:NEXIST applies .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pharaoh of the Wizards, none of the articles you listed actually cover Vadivel Nimalarajah in any sort of depth, which is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about in my nomination. The Island name-drops him in a single sentence. The Sri Lanka Brief is an obvious copy-paste of the Uthayan Wikipedia article (down to the internal wikilinks and the citation style!), but even if it wasn't, it also only mentions Vadivel in a single unelaborated sentence. And for the love of fuck, the Free Media Movement link is a Wordpress blog. You ought to be trouted for trying to present that as a reliable source. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It belongs to the Free Media Movement as per this there website is down they appear they are using a blog .They are a member of the International Federation of Journalists as per this and the Committee to Protect Journalists states here The Free Media Movement, on which CPJ relies to monitor press freedom abuses in Sri Lanka .Note there website was blocked for sometime Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, even if one accepts it as reliable, it's still nothing more than a single-sentence mention. How does any of that qualify as in-depth coverage as required by policy? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (reluctantly) however I would have to concur with the nominator, in that the individual lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. A single sentence mention is not significant coverage. Dan arndt (talk) 07:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He is subject to an International campaign by International Federation of Journalists and there is sustained coverage about him over the years and the coverage by the Tamil and Sinhala media sources are not available including his newspaper Uthayan has covered the subject in detail.Hence WP:NEXIST applies. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
his newspaper Uthayan has covered the subject in detail - and all of those sources that his newspaper produced, no matter how in-depth, would be a complete failure of the requirement that sources be independent of the subject, and therefore even if located would contribute nothing to a claim of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources from the Tamil media to substantiate this claim? Otherwise, if you're relying on the same sources/claims as Pharaoh of the Wizards, I have fairly thoroughly assessed them as being not helpful to a notability claim. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2018 (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. OR problems can be addressed by editing but consensus is that this is a notable topic. SoWhy 14:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about animal rights

List of songs about animal rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODded with reason "Huge amount of original research (see edit summary of article creator). Not a single source showing notability of the concept of "songs about animal rights". WP:INDISCRIMINATE.". Article dePRODded with reason: "remove prod". PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN. Here's a selection of sources:
  1. Animal Rights - A Beginner's Guide
  2. From Donald Trump to animal rights - the jukebox which only plays protest songs
  3. Story Behind the Protest Song
  4. Sounds of Resistance: The Role of Music in Multicultural Activism
  5. The Animals' Agenda
  6. Moby meets DJ Mag USA to talk new music & animal rights
  7. Meat is murder? Rockers go head to head over animal rights
  8. Radicalism and Music
Andrew D. (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see anything really addressing notability. We're already dealing with a WP:FRINGE topic, so one needs to be careful of unduly giving songs or the overall topic too much weight. This basically just looks like WP:OR/indiscriminate listing as Randykitty mentioned. Andrew above mentions sources without linking to anything, but those also look like cases of not really addressing the topic directly. As it stands, this list violates WP:NOTCATALOGUE policy. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the entire list, and most of the sources were actually junk sourced to blogs, facebook, etc. I even found an Angelfire website. I'm really concerned people below were saying the article is adequately sourced when a those low quality sources didn't even catch people's eyes. Even looking at the keep votes up to August 5, it doesn't look like anyone has been able to establish WP:NLIST in terms of treatment as a group. Most of the sources are either name dropping an individual song, or else broader discussion of animal rights groups using music without picking out important songs that would be useful for generating a list. We don't really get that level of discussion about the group as opposed to discussion of a broad genre more suitable for a non-list article. Even the remaining items have sourcing issues, but I already spent enough time cleaning out junky sources as it is. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're being a bit hasty mass-deleting sources, including a RS book on anarchy-punk culture and an interview with a large newspaper, along with almost the entire lede section. But note that even the entries you admit are mostly well-sourced constitute a sizable (>70) list. Also, it doesn't make sense to discuss the topic as a "broad genre", as the songs listed span a range of established genres from punk to folk to pop; what unifies them is just their subject matter. FourViolas (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sources may be relaible, but those are just passing mentions/name-dropping the song. The subject matter doesn't appear to be covered generally, which fails WP:NLIST. SportingFlyer talk 02:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The lead-in already covers the topic significantly with several publications that indicate its importance in mainstream music[67], straight edge[68][69], anarcho punk,[70][71] alternative and pop music (this reference also describes its importance at live shows)[72] and Hispanic music.[73] The subject, animal rights, is what joins them all together, not the music genre. Regarding indiscriminate lists, they constitute "a collection of information gathered without care or making distinctions or in a thoughtless manner", the opposite of this list and the same reason why I included the "Themes" and "Language" columns since I started it. WP:NLIST was already established (see the message in the Template:Nowiki at the top of the list; one of its criteria says: "Only add songs made by artists with articles on the English Wikipedia") and since this nomination and FourViolas's proposal on the talk page, it's only restricted to reliable sources and not lyrics. The list is good compendium of songs of a notable and sourced topic, not a controversial issue, so WP:DUE is irrelevant; otherwise lists such as this one or this one should be limited to songs that had a profound impact or only those that have articles.
On the other hand, Kingofaces43's sweeping removal of sources included many articles by reliable sources: Los Angeles Times, Roadrunner Records, WBUR-FM, MTV, the official website of Attrition, Fender, and an interview in the ALF (which doesn't make part of the compilation of songs and comes from its press office) are among those that I found at a glance. He also removed others of animal rights organizations (like this detailed description of an anti-vivisection song by the artists themselves) which are valid per WP:BIASED. There was only one Facebook source (which is the official account of Conflict and accepted per WP:NOYT), and I was also extremely dubious of using the Angelfire link and the few blogs sourced (although some of them are officials' of notable authors)[74] but I only added the ones with interviews to the artists, and almost always with the Template:Nowiki indicating reliable sources that link to them. I will try not to use them again, and I'm looking for reliable sources for all the entries that need them. Ojo del tigre (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying to argue for list inclusion now, not list group notability, so your comment above mostly doesn't belong in this AfD. That being said, songs and references I removed only gave passing mention to the song with essentially namedrops or were not independent (interviews generally do not contribute to DUE and didn't even meet the criteria you created for inclusion). Also, no editor should reasonably consider a terrorist group like ALF to be a "reliable enough", and PETA really has no place in due weight discussions both because of independence and WP:FRINGE. For this AfD though, your NLIST claim is circular logic and in opposition to WP:INHERIT. That is assessed by notability of the group or set of objects. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP:LISTN (not WP:NLIST, confusingly) requires assessment of whether the group or set of animal rights-related songs has been addressed as such in RS. That's exactly what Ojo is demonstrating: it has, and repeatedly, by scholarly sources with a range of genre-specific emphases as well as at full generality. FourViolas (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't blatantly misrepresent editors. I was very clear that I was removing the very "low-hanging" sources that were pretty much unquestionably not appropriate for inclusion and that the remaining sources needed a second pass through. Either way, editors need to stop blanket edit warring the content in after that initial cleanup. As for genre, they can be cross-categorizations. The point is that the topic of music in animal rights may be notable in sources, but notability hasn't really been established for the group or set of songs. The latter is the requirement for this AfD. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You did say you were doing that, but then you also removed a bunch of sources that were clearly appropriate. That's not a misrepresentation. Per BRD, it's your responsibility to defend the bold move of deleting 60,000 bytes of sourced information rather than edit warring.my mistake, WP:BURDEN trumps here.13:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
You seem to be admitting that there are plenty of RS discussing animal rights-related songs as a "topic" (including naming and discussing particular songs, making "top ten" lists, etc.), but arguing that we must delete the article because no source has picked out the exact set of songs currently in the list for discussion. But that's just the observation that this is a dynamic list, and that hardly justifies deletion. You could just as well say that we should delete the featured lists List of University of Waterloo people or List of English words containing Q not followed by U because, while there are sources establishing the notability of the "topic", nobody has published or discussed this exact set of items. FourViolas (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS not a valid argument at AfD, those dynamic lists (well, the "Qu" may be fairly static) have clear guidelines for inclusion. No one is arguing one source has to discuss all of the songs on the list - the argument is no clear inclusion criteria for this list exists, and the difficulty of sourcing this list has been demonstrated by the removal of a number of poor sources which casually name-drop a particular song has an animal rights connection. SportingFlyer talk 12:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But there are clear inclusion criteria, two competing ones (the introduction of which has served to confuse this AfD): either a simple RS assertion that a song is animal rights-related (generating a list of at least 60 or so songs), or as you and Kingofaces43 seem to prefer, a RS with "more than a passing mention" of a song's connection to animal rights (leaving at least 39 per Kingofaces's most recent trim). I think the first is clearer, but if you think the second is required by WP:BALASPS, as Kingofaces does, you must be accepting that there is an effective RS consensus on which songs are important to the topic of animal rights-related songs, and therefore that the topic satisfies WP:LISTN. FourViolas (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, do not misrepresent editors when I blatantly told you this is incorrect in my last post before you even made this comment. Having sources mention individual songs may meet WP:DUE, but that does not imply notability to the group of songs. For notability, a source(s) needs to dig into the group or set of songs, but that doesn't mean a list needs to be restricted to only those mentioned there. That is distinct from sources that broadly talk about music and animal rights advocacy, which would be more appropriate at a main article rather than a list while not inherently giving notability to a list article. We have a few that fall into the category, but would be weak towards actually supporting notability of such a main article because they are usually focused on particular artists, etc. This AfD is only about a list though, so we need to stay on topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t understand the distinction you’re trying to draw between "animal rights-related music" and "the set of all animal rights-related songs". What could the topic being discussed in RS like Castro 2009, Simonson 2001, or Lucchesi 2011 possibly be other than a group or set of songs about animal rights issues, given that the songs being discussed are not unified by genre or musical tradition? And if they’re only discussing the topic and not the songs as a group, why does each author spend a large proportion of their time naming and discussing particular songs?
There’s even a good case to be made for notability solely on the basis of list articles of animal rights or vegetarian-relates songs published in non-animal-rights-related reliable sources: Lucchesi 2011, Fossum 2012, and maybe Mechanic 2016.
Finally, for the record, identifying what I think is a logical entailment of your position—that, if including certain verifiable entries is giving their sources more than their due weight, there must be a sufficiently large universe of reliable sources on the list subject to determine which entries are appropriate to include, and therefore enough to write a well-sourced list, and therefore the list is notable—is manifestly not a personal attack on you. FourViolas (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is starting to WP:BLUDGEON the AfD, so especially since my posts are being misrepresented even though they already address everything you've brought up, I'll just leave my previous posts stand for themselves. In short, you're putting the cart before the horse with the comment about how authors spend time talking about songs. Someone could try to make a case for a main article with that argument, but we're at a list AfD instead. The impact of the group or set for notability is needed rather than the current sources talking about the broad topic and giving examples. As for things like the Westword source, that's enough for inclusion in a list, but doesn't establish list notability as already mentioned. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment. I just went through and did a major cleanup of the poor sourcing to things like lyrics databases, sources basically just namedropping a song as passing mention, etc. and was left with this. Those are really the only songs in the list where sources discuss an individual song beyond a one-liner. The problem is that inclusion in terms of assessing WP:DUE is independent of the outcome of this AfD. Those are mostly just sources discussing individual songs, not the group or set as we need for list notability. The lead was also trimmed to better conform with WP:LEADFORALIST since the title is self-evident. Many of those sources are discussed here anyways, but I would encourage editors to look at what the pruned version looks like with many of the poor references removed and the remaining properly formatted. I was open to changing my mind away from delete when cleaning everything up, but I'm still convinced deletion is the best route after going through what even the better sources have to say with regards to the songs as a set as opposed to the broader topic of animal rights and music that wouldn't automatically inherit notability towards a list of songs. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So here are the sources that Andrew D. mentions. Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8 are these books [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], which are impossible to check for specific named songs without a proper page reference. No. 2 is this article from the Yorkshire Post [80] which doesn't mention any songs by name. No. 6, the Moby article, only mentions one song by name, which isn't included in the article, and doesn't specifically say the song is about animal rights, only that the video features images of animal cruelty [81]. No. 7 only mentions one song by name, the Smiths' "Meat Is Murder", as a soubriquet for Morrissey [82]. The majority of the existing sources in the article are not RS, and even those that are RS require original research because they don't explicitly state that the song addresses a particular animal rights issue, it's usually implied – for example, Rick Wakeman explaining to Newsweek how "Don't Kill the Whale" was written [83], while the Wyndham Wallace article on the Colourfield mentions the track "Cruel Circus" three times without ever stating what the song is about, the animal rights issues are inferred from quoting the lyrics [84]. It's possible that the list could be kept, but it would have to be dramatically cut down to a handful of songs, because these are the only ones that can be reliably sourced. Richard3120 (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More sources demonstrating that the topic of animal rights-related songs as a group has been addressed directly by multiple reliable sources, and therefore passes WP:LISTN:
  • Pieslak, J. (2015). "The Music Cultures of Radical Environmental and Animal Rights Activism". Radicalism and Music: An Introduction to the Music Cultures of al-Qaida, Racist Skinheads, Christian-Affiliated Radicals, and Eco-Animal Rights Militants. Wesleyan University Press. p. 148. ISBN 978-0-8195-7585-2. Retrieved 2018-07-27.—this source alone ought to confirm notability
  • Simonson, Peter (2001). "Social noise and segmented rhythms: News, entertainment, and celebrity in the crusade for animal rights". The Communication Review. 4 (3): 399–420. doi:10.1080/10714420109359476. ISSN 1071-4421. S2CID 145278028.—particularly section beginning p. 408 with Like other aspects of the U.S. tradition opposed to animal suffering, rock music for the cause was a British import
  • Lucchesi, Nick (2011-10-01). "Ten great punk songs about going vegetarian". Westword. Retrieved 2018-07-27.
  • Raven, Robin (2017-03-16). "7 Vegan Songs to Add to Your Playlist". VegNews.com. Retrieved 2018-07-27.
These sources each contain some amount of useful synthetic material about the topic as a whole, satisfying GNG, as well as plenty of individual song titles, allowing a good-sized list to be assembled without the need for any OR.
Also, WP:Fringe theories is a policy on how to treat pseudoscience or other ideas not broadly supported by scholarship in its field (unlike animal rights theories: 60% of ethicists in one survey rated eating meat as morally bad) to avoid misrepresenting the scholarly consensus. It is not a general recommendation against writing articles about countercultures. But even if you want to call the idea that people should write songs against the exploitation of animals a "fringe theory", the first two sources I listed satisfy WP:NFRINGE. FourViolas (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FourViolas, I don't think anybody is arguing that animal rights is a "fringe theory" or shouldn't be covered in Wikipedia, rather that there exist few reliable sources that explicitly name particular songs as being written about animal rights. I don't have access to the second source you cite, so I can't tell if it mentions any songs or not. The third source, Westword, looks like it passes RS, but the author is not a staff member. Richard3120 (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The second source names "Skin" by Siouxsie and the Banshees, "Assault and Battery" by Howard Jones, "Don't Kill the Animals" by Nina Hagen and Lene Lovich, and "Meat is Murder" by the Smiths. I'd have to check out the first one to see all the songs it lists as animal rights-related, but they include "This is the ALF" by Conflict and "Stop Talking—Start Revenging" by Vegan Reich.
I don't know why you say Lucchesi isn't a staff member; he has written dozens of articles for Westword, although he seems to have left a few years ago. And VegNews may not be an RS for many purposes (and doesn't contribute to satisfying NFRINGE), but it's as good a source as any for identifying elements of the culture of the animal rights movement. In addition, a WaPo review of PETA's Animal Liberation (album) names three more songs that "musically question the need to mistreat or consume non-human life": "Silent Cry" by Chris and Cosey, "Cruel Circus," by Colour Field, and the version of "Supernature" by Lovich. Brown, Joe (1988-06-10). "GRRR! FIGHT SONGS FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS". Washington Post. Retrieved 2018-07-27.
FourViolas (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, it was merely an observation that I can't see the second source, so I have to rely on you or another editor with access to source the named songs in it. Lucchesi isn't listed among the current staff [85], maybe he was a previous employer of the paper. Richard3120 (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looking at the history of the page it's clear this is WP:OR, and it also seems to be an indiscriminate list. I understand it might be a notable topic from the above sources, but I have no idea what the criteria would be for adding the songs here, and it doesn't seem specified. SportingFlyer talk 03:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ojo del Tigre's initial edit summary—I have only added songs that I could listen to, read their lyrics and find sources that assert the position of the artists—is causing some confusion here. If the songs were added solely based on OdT's opinion that the lyrics seem animal rights-related, that would be OR. But every song is listed with a citation, and every citation I've checked includes an explicit assertion (by the songwriters or a qualified scholar) that the song in question was written to address a political issue relating to the human treatment of non-human animals. That seems like a clear enough criterion, and it eliminates the OR concern. Ojo del Tigre, could you confirm, or explain the criteria you've been using? FourViolas (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Most sources point to the specific issues addressed by the songs, whereas the songs sourced by lyrics don't make a quarter of the list and most of them come from compilations of the Animal Liberation Front.[86][87] What I meant on my edit summary was that if I find a reliable source for a song, but I couldn't listen to it, I would not add it (for example "Columbia is Bleeding"[88] by Nellie McKay, for which I've only found a demo version on YouTube). I've listened to and read the lyrics for all the entries, because I've seen musical articles developed by people who are good editors, but haven't heard the music, and in my opinion it's noticeable. On the other hand, I didn't add any song in which the stance of the artists (not only on their song, but personally) is not clear, so their lyrics could be sarcastic ("The Day Ted Nugent Killed All the Animals" by Wally Pleasant, "Tastes Like Chicken" by The Vandals, etc.) and in others there are some sources, but these are limited ("I’ll Stand by You" for instance). In some entries I added two or three sources, one specifically with the lyrics, because the first ones tend to generalize their themes (for example they might say "while the song x talks about broken hearts, y is about animal rights", or merely a passing mention by the composer) whereas the lyrics actually deal with very defined themes.
When the article was nominated, I realized that most of what I described was OR (but I was also surprised because I thought the A.L.F. links were reliable enough), although it is a small part of the list, and I have tried to correct it. I already did it with the songs named by Richard3120, but I've focused mainly on expanding the concept of "relationship between animal rights and music" in the lede. I will look for reliable sources for the other songs but they are a minority on the list. If they have to be removed, I have no problem with that. Ojo del tigre (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm no fan of indiscriminate, undefinable, or uncitable lists, but this is none of those things. There are multiple reliable sources cited at the end; every item is cited; and the list is sharply focused. It isn't easy to see why this should have been brought here, nor why anyone should feel the need to hunt around for additional sources to save it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article may have some OR issues but it's a notable topic. --Michig (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid article with notability. jonnycraig888 (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kingofaces43 has been repeatedly removing almost the entire lead section (mostly written by Ojo de Tigre and revised by me; see the article's talk page). For the benefit of editors considering this AfD, a recent version, containing a large number of academic sources directly addressing animal rights songs as a group, is reproduced below.
Article lead, extended version

Animal rights has been a subject of both popular and independent music since the 1970s.[1][2] Closely associated with the environmentalist counterculture of the previous decade, this topic was greatly influenced by the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the book Animal Liberation of 1975.[1] In the mid- to late 1980s, the hardcore punk and straight edge scenes of the United States became increasingly concerned with animal rights and environmentalism as well, spawning the hardline and vegan straight edge ideologies.[3]

At the end of the 1970s, animal rights became associated with the anarcho-punk movement in the United Kingdom through bands like Crass and Conflict.[4] In the following years, numerous anarcho-punk bands made animal rights a main feature of their music, promoting themes such as vegetarianism, opposition to hunting and anti-animal testing, as well as organizations like the Animal Liberation Front.[5] As of the mid-1980s, several mainstream musicians were directly involved in animal rights and vegetarian activism, and some, particularly British ones, wrote songs advocating these.[6] During this time, the organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) started to expand its activism to media culture, including music; the organization partnered with alternative and mainstream artists, released a compilation album in 1987, and organized various benefit concerts.[7]

In the mid- to late 1980s, the hardcore punk and straight edge scenes of the United States became increasingly concerned with animal rights and environmentalism as well, spawning the hardline and vegan straight edge ideologies.[3] An increase of A.L.F. activism corresponded with the rise of vegan straight edge and hardline bands in the 1990s.[8] The more peaceful Krishnacore subgenre, which also advocates vegetarianism and animal rights, also developed around this time.[9]

Anti-whaling was one of the first common themes of animal rights songs, stirred by the ”Save the Whales” movement, with several mainstream musicians writing songs about it, promoting it and giving charity concerts for related organizations.[1][10][11] In Spain and some Latin American countries bullfighting has been a constant topic; while folk and pop music have traditionally supported it, several ska, rock and punk groups emerged since the mid-1980s which publicly disapprove it.[12]

Prominent animal rights activists, including Rod Coronado and Dan Mathews, were directly inspired by punk artists who espoused animal rights.[7][8] The association between punk subculture and animal rights continues on into the 21st century as evinced by many bands of both anarchist and straight edge leanings, as well as the prominence of vegan punk events such as Fluff Fest in Czech Republic and Verdurada in Brazil.[13][14]

References

  1. ^ a b c Rojas, Eunice; Michie, Lindsay (8 October 2013). Sounds of Resistance: The Role of Music in Multicultural Activism. ABC-CLIO. p. 172. ISBN 978-0313398063. Retrieved 26 July 2018.
  2. ^ Kale, Chris P.; Tilbürger, Len (2014). "'Nailing Descartes to the Wall': animal rights, veganism and punk culture" (Zine). Active Distribution. Archived from the original on 16 December 2015. Retrieved 26 July 2018.
  3. ^ a b Haenfler, R. (2006). Straight Edge: Clean-living Youth, Hardcore Punk, and Social Change. Rutgers University Press. p. 53. ISBN 978-0-8135-3852-5. Retrieved 2018-08-09.
  4. ^ Glasper, Ian (2014). The Day the Country Died: A History of Anarcho Punk 1980–1984. PM Press. ISBN 9781604865165.
  5. ^ Stewart, Francis (2016-09-01). "This is (not) the A.L.F.?: Anarchism, punk rock and animal advocacy" (PDF). Punk & Post Punk. 5 (3). Intellect: 227–245. doi:10.1386/punk.5.3.227_1. ISSN 2044-1983.
  6. ^ Tamarkin, Jeff; Rockmaker, Deirdre (November 1985). "Greening of Rock". Vegetarian Times. No. 99. Active Interest Media, Inc. p. 32–26. ISSN 0164-8497. Retrieved 26 June 2018.
  7. ^ a b Simonson, Peter (2001). "Social noise and segmented rhythms: News, entertainment, and celebrity in the crusade for animal rights". The Communication Review. 4 (3): 399–420. doi:10.1080/10714420109359476. ISSN 1071-4421. S2CID 145278028.
  8. ^ a b Pieslak, Jonathan (March 2014). "The Music Cultures of Radical Environmental and Animal-Rights Activism (REARA)" (PDF). Exit-Deutschland. ISSN 2196-8136. Archived from the original on 21 October 2017. Retrieved 21 June 2018.
  9. ^ Dines, Mike (2014). "The Sacralization of Straightedge Punk: Bhakti-yoga, Nada Brahma and the Divine Received: Embodiment of Krishnacore". Academia.edu (3). Department of Musicology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana: 148–150. Retrieved 31 July 2018.
  10. ^ Rothenberg, David (2010). Thousand-Mile Song: Whale Music in a Sea of Sound. Basic Books. pp. 49–50. ISBN 978-1458759245. Retrieved 27 July 2018.
  11. ^ Weyler, Rex (6 October 2004). "Hotel Papa". Greenpeace: How a Group of Ecologists, Journalists, and Visionaries Changed the World. Rodale, Inc. pp. 395–396. ISBN 1594861064.
  12. ^ de Castro, Julian (2009). "Más All del Pasodoble y de la Copla: Un Acercamiento a la Tauromaquia Desde el Pop-Rock, el Jazz y Otras Manifestaciones Musicales Modernas" (PDF). Revista de Estudios Taurinos (in Spanish). 26: 205–254.
  13. ^ Kuhn, Gabriel (2010). Sober Living for the Revolution: Hardcore Punk, Straight Edge, and Radical Politics. Oakland: PM Press. p. 137. ISBN 978-1-60486-051-1.
  14. ^ Denise de Paiva Costa Tangerino (May 2010). "Verdurada: uma breve reconstrução dos interdiscursos que constituem sua história" (PDF). Intercom.org.br (in Portuguese). Escola Superior de Propaganda e Marketing. Archived (PDF) from the original on 31 July 2018. Retrieved 31 July 2018.
FourViolas (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's some academic and popular literature exploring animal rights in music, and a list of songs (if properly sourced) strikes me as an appropriate spin-off topic. I confess I am struggling to understand the argument being put forward by KingofAces about the notability/impact of the "group", and it sounds like a lot of the other concerns that have been raised (no doubt legitimately) can or have been solved through cleanup. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well done clean-up and sourcing. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Pieslak book and Simonson publication from FourViolas's list of sources show that the list topic satisfies WP:LISTN, as songs about animal rights are discussed extensively as a group or set. The article lead was much stronger before the recent deletions, although some of it could benefit from being split into a separate "History" section above the list of songs. — Newslinger talk 18:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obvious Heymann instance.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 14:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intiguttu (1984 film)

Intiguttu (1984 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM. There is also a 1958 film with the same name which makes searching for sources more complicated. » Shadowowl | talk 23:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - based off searches for both names, I couldn't find any reviews with more than a couple of lines. It certainly seems as if NFILM isn't satisfied. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - A major Tollywood film by iconic director and actors. Finding online sources in another language and script from a film that came out before online existed is extremely challenging. I don't believe for a second that there wasn't extensive print coverage when this film came out, either reviews or features in the Telugu language. Of what I can find in English, the book History of Indian Cinema says this is a Filmfare Awards winner in the Best Actor category which demonstrates passing WP:NFILM, specifically WP:NFO - "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking" as well as "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career."--Oakshade (talk) 03:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:11, 2 August 2018 (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. SoWhy 14:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JangleBox

JangleBox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Has an advert tag on it for 6 years and an unreferenced tag for 12 years. » Shadowowl | talk 23:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:11, 2 August 2018 (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America1000 05:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martín Pedreira

Martín Pedreira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Non-notable as either scholor or musician. Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:MUSICBIO Ifnord (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More information on renowned guitarist, professor and theorist Martín Pedrira: https://www.guitarraclasicadelcamp.com/viewtopic.php?t=9087 https://www.guitarraclasicadelcamp.com/viewtopic.php?t=25469 https://www.guitarraclasicadelcamp.com/viewtopic.php?t=17281--Ernesto53 (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 10:46, 17 August 2018 (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. SoWhy 14:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firestone Diamonds

Firestone Diamonds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The references here are standard coverage you would expect from any small publicly listed company, at least in the UK at any rate. Beyond this I do not believe this small company is notable enough to warrant inclusion. Uhooep (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no functional news sources that don't fail on independence. The poor sources swamp even the WP:ROUTINE coverage you would usually expect to see on an AIM-listed company. There were a few reliable book mentions, but only a couple of lines in each, as far as I could tell. No indication that WP:NCORP is satisfied. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

    From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):

    There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.



    Analyst reports

    1. This articleInternet Archive from the Royal Bank of Canada, which issues analyst reports about Firestone Diamonds, notes:

      Firestone Diamonds (Sector Perform, £0.40 Price Target)

      Firestone is bringing its 75% owned Liqhobong mine back into production (the balance being owned by the Government of Lesotho), with first production expected in Q4/16. Capex guidance is R2.1bn (US$185m), although funding this is likely to be helped by the weakness in the rand (the company uses R13.27/US$1). The company stated in October that it had ~US$4m of headroom excluding the US$15m standby facility; again, the weakness in the rand is likely to provide some financial respite, although we note the need for the project’s timing and capex not to slip further. In our view, Firestone has the largest development risk, given relatively challenging conditions in Lesotho in terms of weather and gaining work permits to get the required staff on site. There has been some easing of this, we believe.

      In the background, the company has also entered into an agreement with Tango Mining to sell its assets in Botswana (primarily the BK11 mine) for US$8m in cash. Tango has not yet raised the funds and requested an extension to the agreed timetable and an agreement is expected to be finalized in early 2016. We would view a successful disposal as positive for Firestone.

    2. Coatsworth, Daniel (2016-06-09). "Firestone's diamond revival". Shares. Archived from the original on 2018-07-29. Retrieved 2018-07-29.

      The article notes:

      It seems very unlikely that Firestone will remain a single asset business, given the wealth of talent on the board and management team. There is a lot riding on Liqhobong’s revival so don’t expect corporate expansion just yet. Brown would be foolish to run too fast with acquisitions before the mine is running smoothly. He says it will take six to seven months to ramp up production in 2017 to desired levels.

      Firestone used to be a multi-asset business but took the decision to cut loose from projects that didn’t meet the grade. This disciplined approach should be applauded. Botswana-based BK11 – once its flagship project – is in the process of being sold to Tango Mining (TGV:TSXV) for $8 million. Licences for the company’s exploration prospects have been given up.

      ...

      Stockbroker FinnCap wrote in February 2016 that Firestone could indeed be a target for another miner. ‘Liqhobong gives Firestone an excellent core business from which to acquire and build out a growth portfolio,’ says analyst Martin Potts. ‘On the other hand, it could be an excellent growth opportunity for one of the more established diamond producers. … Three strategic shareholders control more than 55% of Firestone’s equity and so will effectively decide what happens in the event of any M&A discussions.

    3. This articlearchive.is from The Wall Street Journal notes:

      The newest mine to come into production— Firestone Diamonds PLC’s Liqhobong mine, located in the same Maluti mountains as Letseng—was completed end of last year. In February, Firestone held its first auction of diamonds from the mine, selling all 75,936 carats offered. A single 37-carat diamond was sold for over $1 million.

      Liqhobong “has raised a lot of eyebrows and very well could result in a recurrence of interest in terms of diamond exploration in Lesotho,” said Patrick Morton, a metals and mining analyst at Macquarie Group.

    4. This articleWebCite from businesslive.co.za notes:

      In a report on September 27, RBC Capital Markets analyst Des Kilalea lifted the price target to 60p/share, based on a better outlook for diamond prices in 2018, the imminence of Liqhobong’s production and free cash flow generation. There could be further upside potential if large stones are discovered.

      Kilalea says there are three reasons to be positive about Firestone. It has the potential for large stones, which would boost average recoveries; it could be an acquisition target; and it could be in a position to start paying dividends from its 2018 financial year.

      ...

      In a note issued in July, Macquarie analyst Patrick Morton also upgraded Firestone’s shares to "outperform", with a 40p-60p valuation and a 12-month price target of 45p.

      Morton says this is based on Liqhobong’s likely early project completion, its solid operational team, potential for diamond price upside and the fact that Firestone will be one of only three new diamond miners producing 1mcarats or more.

    https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/LON/FDI/price-target/WebCite contains a list of analyst reports available under a paywall:

    Date Brokerage Action Rating Price Target Details
    3/8/2018 Canaccord Genuity Reiterated Rating Speculative Buy GBX 20 Paywall link
    10/23/2017 FinnCap Reiterated Rating Under Review Paywall link
    10/12/2017 Royal Bank of Canada Downgrade Sector Performer GBX 46 ➝ GBX 19 Paywall link
    10/10/2017 Macquarie Reiterated Rating Outperform GBX 55 Paywall link
    9/11/2017 Panmure Gordon Lower Price Target Buy GBX 68 ➝ GBX 38 Paywall link
    8/9/2017 Investec Reiterated Rating Buy GBX 37 Paywall link
    4/5/2017 Shore Capital Reiterated Rating not rated Paywall link
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Firestone Diamonds to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - So most of the sources provided by Cunard do not satisfy the intellectually independent requirement (particularly those listed in the latter paragraph). That said, the WSJ source appears excellent. I'm unsure about the Financial Mail - it could be excellent, it could be poor (Couldn't find it on the reliable sources archives). Thus I have functionally pseudo-compromised on that particular source. In any case, this is clearly enough to lift my !vote off being a delete, and I've suitably amended to WK while I consider it. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:05, 2 August 2018 (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 10:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Great White Stanhope

The Great White Stanhope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The current sourcing does not contribute to GNG; the comic’s website, MySpace page, and Amazon are not RS. In a before search, all I found that was reliable and secondary was an AllMusic review. However, several independent reviews or pieces devoted to this album are required. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there may have been grounds for a procedural close, a brisk check of the article suggests at least a prima facie case for article deletion on notability grounds
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:29, 9 August 2018 (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) 19:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland–Rutgers football rivalry

Maryland–Rutgers football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NRIVALRY says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable" and defers to WP:GNG. GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Currently there are zero citations which reference an existing rivalry, with the four current citations citing the desire to both create a trophy and a rivalry. So rivalry claim is not currently established. Searches do not return significant coverage in independent sources to meet GNG standards ("significant coverage"). Secondary (non-GNG) indicators of few historical matches and only 6 recent matches in the current Big Ten. Fails GNG, might be WP:TOOSOON. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and questions. Interesting AfD. Not much history between them, but I don't think it's so much a "manufactured" rivalry as having been forced on them: They are the newbies in the Big Ten and also the two easternmost schools (180 miles from each other and many hundreds of miles from the rest of the conference). It seems inevitable that, if it hasn't happened already, this will develop into a true rivalry. Who else does Rutgers have as a rival? The Princeton–Rutgers rivalry has been defunct for almost 40 years. Does every FBS school warrant at least one current rivalry article? I'm not sure, but if so, Maryland is Rutgers' only option. Cbl62 (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's "manufactured" in the sense the schools are trying to create a trophy amongst themselves, as opposed to having a natural rivalry develop. FBS schools don't warrant current rivalry articles unless they pass WP:GNG, and there's some talk about it since the schools are apparently trying really hard to make this a rivalry. It may get past WP:GNG on that alone, since there's a number of sources which discuss it. SportingFlyer talk 21:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. As noted above, I think this will inevitably evolve into a true rivalry, but the sources just aren't there yet to support it. Like the sources referenced by UW Dawgs, the sources I found on Newspapers.com (here, here, and here) talk about a "potential" or "possible" rivalry developing in the future. Once it evolves sufficiently and/or if it becomes a trophy game, then I for one would be open to the article being re-created. Cbl62 (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a few games in the past with two teams that now are in the same conference--this isn't a "rivalry" it's just a history. It could become a notable rivalry in the future, but just isn't there yet. At least, not that I can see.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Cbl62. CalebHughes (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there might be a point in the future where the rivalry meets the notability standard, but at this point it's WP:TOOSOON. Alansohn (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2018 (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 procedural close. Since one article was cut-and-pasted from this article, a history merge is needed to fix this. SoWhy 14:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Compulsory dance

Compulsory dance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should be deleted because the original version discussed the Compulsory dance (CD) of 2 very different sports: Ice dancing and Artistic roller skating. 2 other articles have just been created--Compulsory dance (ice dance) and Compulsory dance (artistic roller skating) that contain information in the original article, now separated into 2 articles. The creation of the new articles enhances the quality of articles about both sports. As a result, the original article should be deleted. Thank you. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this article is still at AfD, I'd like to make a suggestion: rather than have a disambiguation page called "Compulsory dance" pointing to 2 separate pages for ice dance and artistic roller skating versions, would it be possible to keep the main "Compulsory dance" article as the ice dance version with a hatnote at top along the lines of: {{about|the ice dance competition segment|the artistic roller skating competition segment|Compulsory dance (artistic roller skating)}}
which would read... This article is about the ice dance competition segment. For the artistic roller skating competition segment, see Compulsory dance (artistic roller skating).
This would result in just 2 articles called "Compulsory dance" and "Compulsory dance (artistic roller skating)", rather than the 3 we have now, and there would be no need for a disambiguation page. I just think it might be a bit "neater". Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with either way; I just thought creating the disamb page would be easiest. I also didn't want to give the impression that the ice dance is more important than the artistic rolling skating one. The disamb page also leaves room for other articles about other compulsory dances in other sports, like dancesport, which I understand has a CD, even though it's not represented on WP. So I'm slightly in favor of the disamb article, although if consensus supports Rodney's idea, I'm okay with it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodney Baggins: But is one or the other clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC?--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that ice dance is more widely known than artistic roller skating, there is more information out there on it, and it is included in the Olympics, whereas artistic roller skating is not. I would therefore say that Compulsory dance (ice dance) is the primary topic. However, I may be biased because I am a big figure skating fan myself, so it is probably not entirely appropriate for me to give an opinion! Quite happy to leave things as they are, whatever Christine prefers really. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a FS nut myself, but I agree that ice dance is the primary topic. Yes, it's bigger than artistic roller skating, and has more content out there, but I suspect that an editor knowledgeable about roller skating would know where to look and how to find sources that I, who skated at roller rinks and skated around my neighborhood as a child, could. According to the small amount of research I have done while creating the roller skating article, there has been movement towards making roller skating into an Olympic sport. However, I support the disamb page because it leaves it open for experts to show up and work on rs articles. Thanks for the lively discussion, all. I'm excited that we're working towards improving fs articles. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear. I'm quite happy to leave Compulsory dance as a disambiguation page pointing to the FS and RS articles, if that's the preferred option. I was just providing an alternative idea when I suggested keeping the main article for FS with a hatnote pointing to the RS article. Sorry if I've put a bit spanner in the works. As you were...! Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No Rodney, you're good. You've made an excellent summary of our discussion. Keep up the good work. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Red Phoenix talk 02:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Regarding disambiguation, WP:TWODABS disfavors two-link disambiguation pages, as it is almost always possible to determine a primary topic where there are only two possibilities. The primary topic should be at the primary topic title. bd2412 T 02:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, for as long as I've been around, I was unaware of that policy. Well, then, in that case, how about we delete the original article and put a hatnote at the artistic roller skating article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also wow, for as long as I've been around (6 months), I was also unaware of that policy, but I must admit I'm not exactly disappointed! If the FSCD article is considered primary then maybe a hatnote at top along the lines of: {{about|the ice dance competition segment|the artistic roller skating competition segment|Compulsory dance (artistic roller skating)}} and possibly another hatnote at top of RSCD article: {{about|the artistic roller skating competition segment|the ice dance competition segment|Compulsory dance (ice dance)}} ...? Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mortee, I agree with your agreement. ;) I also have the same slight preference as yours. The reason why the ASR article has no references is because the content in the original article had none. I did a simple cut-and-paste. I again agree, it should be fixed, but as someone who no knowledge and interest in the topic, and because I have other stuff I wanna do here (like continue to improve fs articles), it won't be me, sorry. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2018 (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. Although nobody cited it explicitly, the strongest argument here is essentially that this fails WP:V. The vast majority of this is referenced to a single source (crayoncollecting.com) which most of the discussants here believe not to be a WP:RS. The next biggest chunk of references is to a HuffPost article, which in turn is based on crayoncollecting.com and an interview with it's creator, Ed Welter. Judging the reliability of sources is one of the things that happens at AfD, and in this case there's strong agreement that this source doesn't meet our standards.

There's a strong chorus of arguments to merge, but merging material that fails WP:V isn't an option, so I'm going with a straight delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative names of Crayola crayons

Alternative names of Crayola crayons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listcruft sourced to a single website. Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 22:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm not sure how reliable that single website is although clearly somebody has put a lot of work into it. I don't think we should be rehashing their hard work to such an extent in a pointless, indiscriminate, list article when we can just refer to it as and when required (if required at all). Even if this is not actually copyvio it does seem to fall within the spirit of plagiarism. Let them be the undisputed god of Crayola trivia and good luck to them. We have an encyclopaedia to write. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "pointless", because it has a point: to help readers figure out what colors different names used at different times referred to. It's not "indiscriminate", unless by that you mean "comprehensive". I'm not even sure how to respond to something as absurd as "the spirit of plagiarism." Plagiarism has a definition: the presentation of someone else's writing as one's own. Citing someone's durably archived research to support a claim, without unattributed quotations of that material, is not plagiarism by any definition. Don't use imaginary bogeymen like "a whiff of copyright violation" and "the spirit of plagiarism" to cast shade on the legitimacy of an article, when your real argument is that articles about crayons aren't important enough to be in Wikipedia. But I don't see why having one line to tell readers what colors with names like "flesh tint", "pink beige", "light green", "Prussian blue", or "torch red" refer to is any less worthwhile than knowing the chart position of a Katy Perry song was in Austria in the summer of 2012. P Aculeius (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Crayola crayons are notable and Crayola is a notable brand. We have an article about Crayola as, of course, we should. This isn't that article. A separate article about the crayons is legitimate, as they are a major product sold worldwide in large quantities over a long period of time. This is not that article. This is... Um... Something else entirely. This attempts to track "alternative names" of the various crayon colours. This is a verifiability minefield. Are they truly the same colours or just similar ones? Is the source WP:RS? This article is the very depth of fancruft. I so think we have far too many articles about them when one would suffice. Others might argue for more than one article and I might be persuaded not to object strongly if the arguments are sound. This article however is indefensible. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See below: this article exists because the content needed to be split off from existing articles about the crayons themselves. The main topic describes well over one hundred different crayons, several dozen of which have been known by different names throughout their history for various reasons. It wasn't practical to include all of that information in the same article due to the sheer volume of the material in question, which was impossible to present in tables without the tables becoming unwieldy walls of text with highly variable width due solely to the number of alternative names for certain colors. If you delete this article, then all of that information needs to be folded back into articles that are already very large and cumbersome. It makes more sense to keep the information here. P Aculeius (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It would have been useful to consider the reasons for this page's existence before claiming that it's useless. This material was split off from the list of Crayola Crayon colors because the tables presented there were too cluttered with alternative names to be easily read and understood. Since numerous colors have been officially or unofficially renamed, some concordance was appropriate for the subject, but it couldn't be properly explained and fit into existing articles. Your nomination of both this and the history of Crayola crayons using the pejorative "cruft" suggests that you consider the subject of crayons trivial and therefore not worthy of extensive coverage. That's not what this nomination is about. You want more sources? Go find some. The fact that most of the information in an article can be cited to one source isn't a reason to delete it. P Aculeius (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You say that "numerous colors have been officially or unofficially renamed". The question is whether this is notable and verifiable. Clearly an "unofficial renaming" is not going to be verifiable and I would question whether an "unofficial renaming" is even "a thing". I am dubious about "official" renamings too. I mean, does Crayola issue press releases saying "We renamed a colour"? If so, that would be verifiability. Does any WP:RS source pick up on these renamings and cover them? If so, then that that could start to prove notability. And if anybody can show significant coverage in multiple reliable sources then I'll even change my !vote to keep. I'm pretty certain that nobody can though. Finally, I will remind you that it is the responsibility of people adding content to reference it. It is not everybody else's job to spend ages hunting for almost certainly non-existent reference material. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But you're missing the key issue: there is a reliable source cited. If you investigate the source, you'll find it's of long-standing duration, carefully written and curated, giving examples of actual color swatches from crayons produced during certain time periods and included with different boxes; you'll see the author documenting different boxes and their contents, how they can be identified from their labels, and much more information that makes it clear that the source is about as authoritative as it's possible for a source other than Crayola itself—which pays scant attention to details from even its recent history, perhaps understandable as it doesn't stand to profit from documenting it—to be. That doesn't mean that everything linked on the website is equally valuable; there are some essays written by other authors who don't go to the same lengths or treat subjects in the same detail, as the site host did in his own material.
Now, given that the source is evidently reliable, and archived, information provided by it is prima facie reliably sourced. If you want more sources, more detail, or want to contrast sources that give different opinions, that's fine. But you can't delete reliably sourced material because you think there ought to be more sources. And the fact that you keep using pejorative words like "fancruft" really doesn't inspire me with confidence that you're willing to accept any sources at all. It's not at all trivial to know that "torch red" is in fact the original name of the "scarlet" crayon, since people out there right now might be expected to run across that colour and wonder why there aren't any like it now. Or that "pink beige" and "flesh tint" were both names for "peach", or that "Prussian blue" was renamed "midnight blue". In fact that's one of the most commonly cited "factoids" about Crayola crayons, even though the reasons given for the change vary from one version to another, and don't seem very credible (American schoolchildren being "unable to relate to Prussian history"; prussic acid used to make Zyklon B). The 50 states color contest was highly publicized; I paid attention to it even though I hadn't colored with crayons in more than twenty years, and was somewhat dismayed to discover that my state's official crayon was a dark blackish grey.
Labeling this article as "fancruft" and "indefensible" presupposes the outcome of the discussion. It's worthless, therefore it should be deleted, and there's no need to discuss the evidence, policies, or arguments. It also makes unsupported and incorrect assumptions about the article. I didn't write this article because I'm obsessed with crayons. As I pointed out, I've not colored in decades. I'm not really even tempted to, although I wish I were a good enough artist to draw with crayons, or anything else for that matter. I don't collect crayons, or own any crayon memorabilia. Crayons were a part of my childhood, and knowing the difference between different colors, and seeing how the arrangement of colors and their names has changed through time, is mildly interesting to me because I like categorization and nomenclature, and having had a lot of crayons as a child, it's easier for me to relate to crayon colors than say, varieties of tropical fish bred for home aquariums.
But the main reason I created this article is because the information, although useful and documentable, was cluttering up the tables used in two related articles, and making them unattractive and potentially unreadable. After working hard to streamline the tables for maximum usefulness, the greatest obstacle remaining was the amount of information given under "notes" for nearly every line. Nearly all of it useful and verifiable, but not necessary a good idea in the place where it was kept. Splitting off that information and creating this article was the most logical solution to the problem; this article is devoted exclusively to this relatively space-intensive information, and doesn't have tables to clutter up. It was a pragmatic solution to overloaded charts, not an act of fan worship. If you think there should be more sources, find some. But don't condemn the article as "fancruft" because you don't consider the subject worth including in Wikipedia. There's a lot of stuff that's more trivial than this around, and a lot less likely for people to want to know. P Aculeius (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not what that policy is about. This isn't a discussion of product availability or pricing, and these aren't separate products, but components of a single product that's varied widely for over a hundred years, and which has been found in practically every school and household that's had children for much of that time. This article bears no resemblance whatever to a sales catalogue. P Aculeius (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need availability or pricing to be classified as a catalogue or directory. In fact the only source on this article was someones blog, so it probably also fails WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the policy you cited talks about. It has seven paragraphs about different types of directories, of which the only one that's even tangentially related to your reason is:

Sales catalogues. An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers.

Which is clearly not applicable to this article. Furthermore, CrayonCollecting.com is clearly not a blog. Although the host's article, "The Definitive History of the Colors of Crayola" is self-published, it is a perfectly acceptable source given that it is independent, rather than affiliated with Crayola; non-commercial; provides evidence in the form of specific details, citations to literature, news, advertising and press releases by the company with relation to its own products, and fact-checking in the case of color swatches provided to readers for comparison, as well as verifiable background information on related topics where they naturally occur. It's clearly written by someone with a great depth and breadth of knowledge about the subject; an expert on the precise topic in question, and it shows throughout the article's organization and discussion. The policy against using original research applies to an editor's own unpublished work, not to information cited to someone else's published work. Since neither of the policies you've cited applies to this case, it begins to feel like you're just running different policies up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes. P Aculeius (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Although the host's article, "The Definitive History of the Colors of Crayola" is self-published" ... self published sources are not reliable sources. Got any better sources that established this as a notable topic and isn't written like a catalogue of colours? Ajf773 (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously need to reread yet another policy that doesn't say what you think it does. Self-published sources can indeed be perfectly reliable sources, and as the policy states, are sometimes the best available sources for certain information. They're not rejected out of hand simply because they're self-published, which would by definition exclude nearly all websites, scholarly or otherwise. The reliability of self-published sources is judged on the basis of their content; i.e. is the material independent of the subject being covered, is it neutrally written or promoting a particular point of view, does it provide evidence of its claims or is its content unsupported, is it logically written and presented or is it a collection of ramblings, is the writer an expert on the subject or just someone with an opinion, etc. By your logic none of this matters, because you can just ignore it completely irrespective of scholarship or evidence. But that's not what Wikipedia policy is: that's what you want it to be in this case, so that you can justify deleting the article. P Aculeius (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article was split from existing Crayola articles because there was too much information to be fit conveniently into already lengthy articles. Remerging the contents will simply recreate a former problem, that was best resolved by the split. P Aculeius (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that information could appear in another wiki isn't a reason to merge or delete. Everything here is relevant, verifiable, and nearly all of it (and a fair amount that was pared away) came from existing articles. P Aculeius (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly reliable. The author of the article is an expert in the subject, and explains the contents and conclusions clearly and with supporting pictures and diagrams. P Aculeius (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not unsourced, as there's a perfectly good source cited, and others could be found for a great deal of it. If you think it needs more sources, then tag it for more sources, instead of voting to delete it. Nobody's ever even suggested refimprove tags or anything similar. The "infomercial" comment is inapt. An infomercial is a solicitation to buy something by extolling its uses and virtues. Nearly all of this information is historical data about names that are no longer in use, and which have no present commercial use. No claim is made about a product's virtues or uses, and there's no solicitation to buy anything, or indication of how or where a reader would do so. P Aculeius (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If they "could" be found, why haven't they already? As to the promotional nature of the text, that is not shown through "solicitations to buy" of course. You have yet to demonstrate what encyclopaedic purpose is served by the contested list. Lists can be made practically out of everything, yet Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopaedia and NOT an indiscriminate listing of stuff. -The Gnome (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have missed the fact that several additional sources were added five days before this last comment. Also, this argument is absurd: the article has no sources, therefore sources must not exist. You've cited four policies at me today, and made two additional arguments, but you seem to have skipped some relevant ones. For instance: this is a deletion discussion. But under Wikipedia:Deletion policy, it says: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Or, as phrased under Wikipedia:Editing policy, "Fix problems if you can" (emphasis in original), after which comes, "Instead of removing content from an article, consider:... [d]oing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself". Just because an article doesn't have a lot of sources cited, or any sources at all, doesn't justify deletion. If reliable sources can be found, it shouldn't be deleted; but you're assuming that if sources haven't been cited, then they must not exist, and therefore it should be deleted. Well, the article now has a number of additional sources, so it's clearly possible to find them. Why is this argument still being made?
I also wonder whether you have actually read WP:LISTPURP, since one of the three main purposes cited under that policy is: "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." This is clearly a structured list, grouped by theme: the only subject covered here is a list of different names by which Crayola crayons are known, intended to help readers determine which names refers to which colors. This is useful information if someone wants to know what the "state color" for Nebraska or Oregon was (not just what it was called), what happened to "Indian Red", or the convoluted history of "Peach", which was ostensibly renamed as a nod to the civil rights movement, as the same color has been known by four different names since first being produced in 1903. Since the crayons available to people's grandparents and great-grandparents are in many cases still being produced in the same colors, but under different names, people might reasonably need to figure out what color corresponds to what other color at different time periods.
WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE does not apply here; this is not indiscriminate information. It is not a summary-only description of a work; it is not a lyrics database; it is not a listing of unexplained statistics; it is not an exhaustive list of software updates. If this article listed every box of Crayola crayons known to have been produced (there are hundreds of them), or listed the precise contents of each of those boxes, then we might have something resembling an indiscriminate list. Instead, we only have the names of the crayons themselves, identifying which ones are the same, and when each was produced; this is a subject of interest for people other than crayon collectors, and requires no cataloguing information. But since you brought it up, while you didn't name the policy, you're still arguing WP:NOTCATALOGUE, although again, apparently without reading the policy to see why it doesn't apply. The only part of the policy that could conceivably apply here is quoted above, and it doesn't describe this article at all. The fact that the article is about something that people can (or once could) buy does not make it promotional; the policy is about sales catalogues, so the lack of solicitations to buy is perfectly relevant to this discussion.
You might also notice that "it's just unencyclopedic" is listed under "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". You may not think that the subject of this article deserves inclusion in Wikipedia, but plenty of others do. And we're not holding a vote here; that's not how deletion discussions work. No matter how many people weigh in on the discussion, the result has to be based on policy considerations. If the subject is notable, if there are reliable sources, etc. Which I think has been adequately demonstrated here. Some mention has been made of "merging" this into other articles, but as has previously been mentioned, this article was intentionally split off from those other articles because of its size. The "merger" section of WP:Deletion policy says, "[a]rticles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists." Well, this isn't short. This is a list, or at least a list-like article created because there was too much information to include in the articles that originally contained it.
Lastly, and to save space, you suggest that I "urgently" consult WP:BLUDGEON. Why you would do that in reply to a message detailing the addition of new sources in response to a post requesting them is difficult to fathom. But it takes a special type of editor to take a discussion that's already died down, with no new developments for almost a week, and not only cite this policy at one of the participants with whom you disagree, but also several other policies that don't apply, and at the same time rehash old arguments that have already been rebutted. Was the idea to say, "I'm going to spam you with a bunch of arguments that you'll want to respond to, and then warn you that responding to them violates another policy"? I'm not sure if there's a specific policy that applies to that particular form of argument, but it's not a valid way to argue for the deletion of this or any other article. P Aculeius (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's why this article exists as a stand-alone. Most of the contents were originally in two other articles, but there was so much information that it was unwieldy, and the tables containing it were cluttered with alternative names. So it was split off into a separate article. Remerging it would create significant page crowding. P Aculeius (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the information could be cited to other sources. The fact that only one source is cited isn't a reason to delete. It's a reason to add refimprove tags, or better yet, look for more sources. That hasn't even been attempted. P Aculeius (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bd2412 T 02:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak merge to History of Crayola crayons - although I would not mind if this article is kept, as it is rather long and detailed and may be difficult to merge. Vorbee (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • hi P Aculeius, i agree that only one source cited is not a reason to delete (sorry, i should have worded that better), but i did do a gsearch, as i always do in afds that i suggest a course of action, and was unable to find anything else, could you please provide these additional sources here so that editors may assess them (i note that although you have made around 13 responses in this afd you have not provided any), thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the same 2-3 editors have kept me busy for more than a week, when they proposed deleting all six articles relating to Crayola crayons and related material, often based on policies that don't apply (such as the catalogue argument). But as I said, the best way to deal with a paucity of sources is to add refimprove tags, and see if more sources can be located. This morning, I found a number of news articles mentioning a number of these colors, some describing them, others listing their history, and one newspaper gave the names of all the colors in the state color collection. I've already added these, and I'm sure more sources can be found on recent changes with a little more time. Welter's research, however, is still the gold standard, and I found two reliable sources citing him as an expert in his field, which I've also cited in the article now. But there won't be much other material on changes to the color lineup prior to the 1990's, or on names used in specialty and promotional sets, for which the most that can be expected might be pictures of the crayons, or a list of names and general descriptions. Crayons are ephemera, and lifestyle stories like this didn't receive that much publicity in the past. Indeed, as one of the articles cited explains, a great many of the changes to the lineup were carried out without any publicity at all, either as unnoticed marketing decisions, or, as one source described, if I remember correctly, "pulling a fast one". Still, there are more sources out there, and now some of them are cited for the crayons they mention and describe. P Aculeius (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Welter is clearly an expert, perhaps the expert on this topic. His article on the history of Crayola colors is replete with photographs and diagrams documenting the nature of his research and demonstrating his methodology. He's cited as an expert by third-party reliable sources, such as the article cited in the article from the Huffington Post, and on pages 14 and 15 of Lorraine Bell's The Art of Crayon, Quarto Publishing (2016), as well as various other news stories from around the country concerning crayons, crayon collecting, and the history of Crayola. P Aculeius (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2018 (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. MBisanz talk 10:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Kuya

Christian Kuya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. "References" are brief mentions. WP:TOOSOON reddogsix (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable artists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnycraig888 (talk • contribs)

Sock !vote struck
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2018 (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of all polyatomic ions

List of all polyatomic ions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

virtually limitless list that would be impossible to create and maintain Smokefoot (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have also nominated list of ions (virtually every protein, every nucleic acid, metal complex, ...)--Smokefoot (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Equally unmanageable, and woefully incomplete - the vast majority of biochemicals and the majority of drugs are also ions. Is there a policy WP:NOTSIGMACATALOG?. Then we have Ion#Common ions, which at least tries to limit the madness with the qualifier 'common', though vague and never defined - then again, amino acids and nucleic acids are themselves rather common. Agricolae (talk) 06:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Being ionic, and being polyatomic, are both characteristics of chemicals that are extraordinarily common, while the members have almost nothing in common - this would include everything from a hydroxyl group to heroin. Polyatomic ions would probably include the majority of all of our chemical pages, something like having a list of 'people with vowels in their names'. Agricolae (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is a textbook case of an unmaintainable list. shoy (reactions) 13:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 15:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signal Hill Mall

AfDs for this article:
Signal Hill Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very small mall serving a small suburban town; only has a handful of stores and no major anchors. Per WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, this type of article is often deleted. SounderBruce 00:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Statesville, North Carolina. The mall has a reasonably long history, and was apparently once substantially larger and more significant to the town than it is today. It is not independently notable, but this content would be right at home in the article on the town. bd2412 T 02:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a case of "once notable, always notable". At its peak in the 1990s, it had 42 stores and 350,000 square feet (33,000 m2). I added a story from The Guardian, a leading British newspaper, which discusses the mall in the context of "dead malls". Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • One mention in a short online photo essay isn't much of a strong argument. There's hundreds of dead malls, and this one hasn't shown that it's any more notable than the others. SounderBruce 06:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Over 10,000 results in North Carolina on Newspapers.com for "Signal Hill Mall." Lots of trivial mentions, of course, and I don't have an account there, but there's likely more sources other than the dead malls/recent news that major search engines bring up. (Note to closer: this is neither a keep nor a delete vote.) SportingFlyer talk 07:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Depsite its small size, this appears to be a notable local enclosed mall, and there are sources to back it up. Dough4872 20:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the level of sourcing within this article is sufficient to establish notability. I added a couple more sources from newspapers.com that fill in some information on the early years. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:59, 8 August 2018 (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) 19:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnathan East Band

Johnathan East Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly promotional and with unverifiable claims to awards. No reliable independent sources. Fails WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:08, 2 August 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_August_2&oldid=853167507"