Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 July	15 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. I read a consensus that the subject fails WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eduard Badaluta

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

The article was speedy deleted a year ago, recreated now, but I still do not see any notability. Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No works that I can see treating him with significance. Also happy to see a merge+redirect of the single sentence with an RS to the RE2 article. --Izno (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total lack of significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is mentioned in two reputable news sources and his page is relatively popular. Being recognized for being a face model for a video game is a form of significance.

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zim Blog Awards

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

too soon to be able to determine notability--there have not even been any awards so far DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The awards were launched and held last year at Moto Republik in Harare my fellow colleague DGG, i did a research and added more references that am sure Ceethekreator was to add. I believe in finding ways to improve a page before tagging for deletation, lets work on it as a team. It was just a matter of adding citations. Hurungudo (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the fence; send to draft? On the one hand, we've got a newspaper source that says the awards were slated to happen last year. On the other, we have no source for the winners and no indication that there were 2019 awards. Frankly, I don't think the nominator has made a compelling argument to delete it, but I also don't think the article's current condition makes a compelling case to keep it. I almost think the best approach is to send this to draft space for incubation. If draft isn't an option, I'd rather keep it than delete it. —C.Fred (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, have added a source for the winners list.Hurungudo (talk) 10:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You Don't Speak for Me

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

I can barely find any RS coverage of this organization (besides from groups like the ADL and SPLC that systematically collect hate groups, whether they are notable or not), and literally nothing about this organization in the last 10 years or so. The complete lack of RS coverage shows that there is nothing notable about this organization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lousy WP:BEFORE search, to paraphrase Nom, RS coverage shows that there is PLENTY notable about this organization. Article now sourced.A.Jacobin (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All the coverage of the group is limited to 2006 and 2007. It's a sub-org of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Whatever RS coverage there is of this group should be merged with the FAIR article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

first you claim "complete lack of RS coverage", so I run a simple search and add many reputable new stories form papers that include The Washington Post and The Arizona Republic. Now you claim that it should be merged because it was active only briefly. Frankly, I think that you simply DISLIKE this organizations political stance and are a POV editor who goes around deleting articles you DO NOT LIKE by making false assertions such as "I can barely find any RS coverage" when it is crystal clear that you didn't even try. A.Jacobin (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that editors have been warring over this page for years, and that there may well be reliable sources that were deleted. And also, I promise find/make time later in the week to improve the article, although I BELIEVE that the sourcing and edits that I did earlier this week make it a WP:GNG.A.Jacobin (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is well-sourced and persuades me that this is, or was, a notable protest organization.WaterwaysGuy (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Federation for American Immigration Reform - News searches produce a lot of false positives as "you don't speak for me" is a pretty common political statement, and gauging the extent to which this particular astroturf group has any notability is difficult. Let's just tie them back to the parent org. Simonm223 (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but ALL of the articles and books that I have added to the article address this particular organization. More sources here: [1] A.Jacobin (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but having a group of latinos who do astroturf for FAIR doesn't convey independent notability. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep activity over two years (2006-2007) is sufficient to meet WP:SUSTAINED, significant coverage in multiple RS FOARP (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that the topic fails WP:GNG. Being interesting, sadly,is not a valid ground for keeping. At a minimum, where an article is badly sourced, we need some evidence that sources are likely to be out there. Just Chilling (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Domino (car)

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

Only references are to defunct Facebook pages. Not obviously notable and rather a lot of futurology. Rathfelder (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources or notability MaskedSinger (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again, nothing comes up in Google, and it's quite clear that this fails WP:GNG. William2001^(talk) 21:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Facebook references? I think Facebook is not a good reference even if the page is not defunct. William2001^(talk) 21:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a petrolhead I find this article interesting, I have never heard about these guys. Lack of links is not a reason for removal, lots of old/rare stuff is never mentioned on the Web. Mikus (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the age of the company and per Mikus' concerns, this very well could be a notable topic with plentiful offline references, e.g. book on minis. Would be helpful for a petrolhead with a petrollibrary to participate? Pegnawl (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to be convinced that its notable. But all articles need references - and they needn't be online. Rathfelder (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability. Failure to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Haukur (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Alós-Ferrer

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

Apart from being a professor, I can't anything that can be really significant about him and his work. Fails WP:GNG also. Meeanaya (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPROF(1) - h-index of 26 per google scholar. Possibly also NPROF(8) for being editor in chief Journal of Economic Psychology (though it might not constitute as major - not sure). Icewhiz (talk) 07:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meet NPROF 1 and 8 for being highly cited and chief editor. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not prominent enough to appear on the RePEc listings of top Swiss or Spanish economists, but I think the citation record is good enough for #C1, and the editorship (#C8) seals the deal. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unanimity that this student blog is not notable. Just Chilling (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo's Notebook

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

This article is about a local liberal blog that was published for three years by a student. Its claim to notability is that it was ‘consistently ranked in the top ten blogs of influence’ in the state by blognetnews.com and political net news.com, both now also defunct.

The rest of the content covers pretty trivial stuff, some of it with an apparent insider’s knowledge suggesting a close relationship between author and subject. Anyway overall this is about a student blog that once had a spat with another blog. Does not pass WP:WEBCRIT. Mccapra (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.WaterwaysGuy (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nomination. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 20:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo de Arrau

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

Completely unsourced, Google shows mostly copies of this page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - much of this can be sourced - e.g. [2][3]. What's holding me off from a straight WP:NOTGENEALOGY !vote is that he authored a work - Arrau, Lorenzo de: Reconocimiento de las Plazas, Pertrechos y herramientas que se hallan en la frontera de este Reyno. Concepción, 10 de abril de 1769 which is still referenced by modern writers.[4][5] This is not presently in the article and may pass WP:NBOOK (and our subject might pass NAUTHOR) - but this require familiarity with Chilean sources that is beyond my purview (i.e. this may be an obscure travel log, or something that is beyond obscure). Icewhiz (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- the content we have at present is mere genealogy, but I suspect that there is more to his career, so that I am inclined to keep but tag for expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno He is mentioned in a number of books about the founders/early settlers in Chile: [6] For example, the 2nd hit in that gBooks search Los Defensores del Rey, reads "Recuérdase en Chillán a doña Cruz Arrau y Santa María, hija de don Lorenzo de Arrau, oriundo de Cataluña, dueño de la gran estancia de Cato, y de doña Isabel de Santa María Escobedo. En la defensa de la ciudad realista colaboró ..." sourced, that is, to his daughter's recollections of him. Another descendant, Claudio Arrau, liked to boast of/write about this ancestor. So we do have a WP:NOTGENEALOGY problem.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has his entry in the Diccionari dels catalans d'Amèrica, where he is described as military engineer. Genium . 00:56, Jul 24, 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Genium . 11:30, Jul 24, 2019 (UTC)

Keep. Does appear to be of reasonable significance in Spanish military history. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable enough. Although the article needs expansion work with RS cites. Kierzek (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For his activities in the Spanish Army he passes notability. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2014–15 Port Vila Premier League. Fenix down (talk) 08:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2014 TVL Smile Cup

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

The competition doesn't seem to be notable with all of the match reports being linked to a different site altogether. HawkAussie (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC) HawkAussie (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to the Vanuatu Premier League of the given season. The match reports need to be redacted, though, since the website they were linked to is now no longer in operation and has been taken over by an unrelated site. SportingFlyer T·C 04:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge any salvageable content that can be sourced to 2014–15 Port Vila Premier League. Giant Snowman 08:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing is sourced so nothing that can be merged. Just Chilling (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge If not delete. some of the content can be merged to 2014–15 Port Vila Premier League Alex-h (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Haukur (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Fortaleza

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

Clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO. This is probably the only WP:RS used, but the rest are WP:SELFPUBLISHed. Not enough sources to meet GNG or MUSICBIO. Also, why does an article created 14 June 2019 have a maintenance tag for October 2018? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That maintenance tag was placed when the article was created (see here), possibly using a cut'n'paste of a pre-existing infobox, including its templates – there's also a dmy 'plate dated for January 2015. Note article creator (and major contributor) has same name as Fortaleza's Instagram and LinkedIn accounts. The user has been editing since May 2006.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teraplane (talk • contribs) 00:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sufficient reliable sources to substantiate a claim to notability. Possibly a vanity piece/autobiography as article creator's name is same as subject's Instagram and LinkedIn accounts.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Book store shoplifting

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

Concern expressed at earlier AfD four years ago applies as much today if not more: reeks of original research and synthesis, draws very heavily on a handful of non-encyclopedic articles, and generally has no place here. No sign of potential for improvement. E Eng 03:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shoplifting the little bit that is useful here to indicate they're commonly stolen and a mention of what the stores are doing to prevent it, leaving a redirect as well as an alternative to deletion. I agree, this really has a lot of problems, with the sources pretty much being local news events or opinion columns (WP:NOTNEWS). The compilation of information doesn't really articulate a theme here, either, appearing more like an indiscriminate collection of lists of events on the topic. I don't think it has enough weight to warrant a full article, but a mention in the shoplifting article of the reliable content, I think, is warranted. Red Phoenix ^talk 04:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. E Eng 05:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm changing my !vote because I'm convinced that XOR'easter's suggestion below has some merit to it. I don't disagree this is a poorly-worded article with a lot of issues; it was why I suggested a merge to begin with. That being said, renaming the article and refactoring it (noting I would go further than just the lead as suggested) is actually a solid idea. I could support an article on book theft with this as the base to that. But, for all that to happen, we'll have to have that discussion after this AFD is settled first. Red Phoenix ^talk 23:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nothing has changed that would make me change my stance from 2015. Still keep per WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 08:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination just repeats the previous nomination and so is vexatious per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." It is easy to find more substantial sources on the topic including Beatrix Potter-pinching and Žižekian swipes: the strange world of book thefts and Stealing Books in Eighteenth-Century London. See WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as WP:NOTTEMPORARY, stand by what I said in previous afd, a tad disappointed that article has not developed more of a world view ("well coola, what's stopping you?":)) but this is no reason to delete. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG per its WP:RS. XavierItzm (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neither a keep nor a merge would be terrible outcomes, I think. Shoplifting seems too narrow a term; it would be easier to argue for the wiki-notability of book theft more generally. For example, not all the conduct described in The Man Who Loved Books Too Much [7] would necessarily be called "shoplifting", strictly speaking. XOR'easter (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a new article called Book theft (see Library theft, the Canadian Medical Association Journal article "People who steal books", etc.) and a little bit into Shoplifting. IMO, the topic is a bit too narrow for a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could support this proposed merger as well, though this would take some time to assemble correctly. Red Phoenix ^talk 22:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think even just changing the title to Book theft and refactoring the lead a bit would help a lot. XOR'easter (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep oddball topic, but the sourcing on the page establishes that it is a coherent topic, and it passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's weird, but from my experience as a bookseller at Barnes and Noble, it's a unique and serious problem. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Turion

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

Delete per WP:2DABS. Turion (botany) should be the primary topic, as the originator of the word. The AMD Turion was codenamed as such from the word. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: no indication that the botanical use is the Primary Topic. Page views suggest 14 a day for botany, 54 a day for AMD: not overwhelming either way. PamD 10:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. My reading of the discussion is that this is crap, but it's crap that WP:RS have written about. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gemmotherapy

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

Pro-fringe article tagged for notability since February 2016 and last edited (up to the AfD tagging) in 2017. I did not try WP:BEFORE, but the tagging user (Delta13C, renamed to Dino monster just before vanishing) did, and from the titles alone I can immediately tell that all the sources are likely fringe as well. Mainstream analysis demanded since September 2011. (Delta13C found no evidence of mainstream sources.) The lack of edits, as well as being an orphan, is a sign that this alternative treatment is not notable. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ – Firstly, LaundryPizza03 it is an obligation as the nominator to do at least a simple WP:BEFORE. The assertion that someone has done it simply isn't enough. Now, by looking on Google News, you see a lot of news articles—that were made after the notability tag was put onto the article. However, Google Books has the most sources and most are pre-2016. As a few examples, I've found this source that satisfies GNG and looks reliable plus directly referencing this gemmotherapy because I'm half-convinced that there are a few (smaller than this) studies by the name from sifting through google. I've also found this but it's not as solid a source. Anyhow, as you sift further you find more and more sources, this source even asserting there are hundreds of European sources available, but most of them aren't in English. I'm 90% sure that these refer to the same gemmotherapy in the article, but only in one am I fully sure. All in all, there are plenty of sources; it just needs to be expanded. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change to ~~Neutral~~ upon further reflection. Will look more. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as all there seems to be are fringe scientists writing books, a Tasmanian family, and Fox News. Sure there's some reliable source among the several hundred asserted but I don't have the time to find it. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources is the Pharmacopée Francaise, which seems to be mainstream (now replaced by the European Pharmacopoeia). Is there significant coverage or just a mention? Peter James (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources here: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemmoth%C3%A9rapie#Notes_et_r%C3%A9f%C3%A9rences
Keep. As a lot of things in herbal medicine, this may not be scientifically proven, but passes WP:GNG based on publications noted on the page and during this AfD. Even simple Google search for books [8] shows the subject is clearly notable. My very best wishes (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks to be notable even if its fringe and needs some improvement.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was kept and merged with Old Railway Station Museum. This is a content determination, not a title determination. If that result is disputed, it should be through Wikipedia:Requested moves. bd2412 T 17:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

La Estacion Theme Park

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

I found no significant coverage. A claim to notability is that it is historic, but I can find no proof of that. SL93 (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe the article as written, that it is a public attraction which includes a railway museum and more. And I tend to believe it is historic too, probably a railway museum would be located in a historic train station. See the very excellent essay wp:ITSAPUBLICATTRACTION and wp:ITSAMUSEUM. This appears to be notable and we keep these. --Doncram (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But sure, it could/should be tagged about inline sources being needed. But neither the nominator nor I have done a proper search using Spanish language and other local languages, using proper names for the place. The nominator is just not happy with the state of current sourcing; they essentially wp:IDONTLIKEIT without really questioning its existence and its notability. Or they want to force cleanup right now, but wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So you admitted you found no notability either for this article that has been sitting unsourced since 2005. Get over yourself and assuming stuff. SL93 (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Fuck essays too. SL93 (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I did not say I searched and found nothing; I did not even try to do a proper search. But sure there are lots of hits immediately on La Estacion Aguascalientes, including about a restaurant and a whole barrio. I don't read Spanish easily and I am not trying to sort out about the historic train station for which everything is named, and about the museum which may no longer exist. But once notable always notable.
    About your suggestion to "fuck essays", well I think wp:CIVILITY is more fundamental, and with language like that you are offending me and probably others. Anyhow wp:ITSAPUBLICATTRACTION essay in particular is written as a shorthand way to respond to idiotic, uninformed AFDs. Not saying this AFD is one, or that you personally are idiotic and uninformed, so don't go attacking me about wp:PERSONALATTACKS either. Essays are helpful in communicating within AFDs and elsewhere, even ones I don't personally agree with, because they can communicate much more what someone's position is. Instead of writing out the same stuff again and again in ~~response to idiotic, ill-informed AFDs~~ AFDs which are cumulatively repetitive. --Doncram (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC) 00:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh please. You were certainly not being civil even without using such words and offended me. So how about I break it down for you - "The nominator is just not happy with the state of current sourcing" - There is no sourcing. "they essentially wp:IDONTLIKEIT without really questioning its existence and its notability." - I actually did question its notability. So, fuck essays, especially ones that you claim are "very excellent" and that you started. SL93 (talk) 00:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)4[reply]
      - "There is no sourcing"??? I simply don't believe you. Sure, there is no sourcing currently included in the article, but that is not at all a valid reason to delete an article. Given that you and I both probably believe that there was a historic train station in "La Estacion" neighborhood, and that there is or was a theme park including a railway museum, I am 100% certain that sourcing about it exists, maybe off-line, maybe in Spanish, but it has certainly been written about. So there is good reasoning to believe that sourcing exists, so this should be closed "Keep" as it is, or even "Speedy keep" because there is no valid deletion argument.
        Yep, I am proud to have mostly created that essay, and another one or two, that have survived MFD attempts to delete them. You double-down with your language, which really does actually offend me. --Doncram (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Why should I when you came in with false accusations blazing? SL93 (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I would have been perfectly fine with your Keep vote if you didn't try to turn it into me having a vendetta. SL93 (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        "So there is good reasoning to believe that sourcing exists, so this should be closed "Keep" as it is, or even "Speedy keep" because there is no valid deletion argument." - I have been in many AfDs in the past 10 years. That is so not how AfD works. SL93 (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        AFDs are about determining if topics are notable, i.e. whether sourcing exists somewhere, not about the current state of an article.
        Why should you not use profanity? Well, because you are offending me by that profanity. Why should you not use profanity repeatedly, when you have been informed that it is offending someone? Well to avoid appearing to be a jerk. And you should care about CIVILITY and community and all that. This AFD process is a community process, and in a small way you are abusing that process and offending editors (or at least me) and contributing to the decline of Wikipedia. So, no offense, I am tending towards concluding "what a jerk" and walking away, though I will try to be open-minded that you might possibly have a point about something or another. However currently I do believe that there is no validity to this AFD nomination, so it is tending to drag down my impression of you. This is getting too personal, in both directions, so I will probably respond less or not at all from now on. Enjoy your vitriole. --Doncram (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        That is funny because that is what I concluded when you turned it into me having a vendetta against the article (which is also uncivil, also with no apology). If it helps, I doubt that the article is even 100% truthful or truthful at all with no sources since 2005. SL93 (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        If the notability guideline isn't enough to explain my position, is the policy WP:V enough? SL93 (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am also struggling to find sources that show notability. The Old Railway Station Museum already has a Wikipedia article. There is also this article in The Architect's Newspaper which certainly would be the basis of an interesting and notable article. However, I can't be sure if the Museo Espacio is actually the subject of the La Estacion Theme Park article, or if they are separate developments in Aguascalientes. Railfan23 (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Some further research finds a lot of reliable sources for the existence and notability of Museo Espacio in Aguascalientes. My guess (for whatever it's worth) is that the La Estacion Theme Park may have been the first attempt at creating what is now called the Museo Espacio. So my recommendation is that we delete the La Estacion Theme Park article and create a new Museo Espacio article from sources. Railfan23 (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry. that is a ridiculous suggestion. The facts you suggest are motivation for a rename/move/update, not for deletion. And please consider wp:ATD, that we are obligated to look for alternatives to deletion. Not to violate Wikipedia policy about contributions and delete stuff, only to recreate it later without credit to original contributors. --Doncram (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wow, what have I done to deserve that sort of hostility? I made an honest suggestion. Whoever decides to close this "Article for discussion" (emphasis added) can decide whether the suggestion is a good one or not. The article as it stands is unverifiable and in its current state is not notable. Given that, I believe it should be deleted and not renamed/moved, unless reliable sources can be found to show that Museo Espacio is indeed the same thing as La Estacion Theme Park. I was quite deliberate in not suggesting that we redirect or move the article because the connection between the two is my original research so is not a valid basis for making a decision. I just thought it was interesting that there might be a connection. Railfan23 (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, yes, Railfan23, I am sorry I was bitey towards you; for some reason I was in a pretty crabby mood. Separate from this AFD, I have been cumulatively irritated by other AFDs that advocated for deletion of a thing invoking wp:TNT, only for the thing to be recreated because it is obviously notable, and in the process violating Wikipedia's Gnu Public License or whatever is our current license with contributors (more about this in essay wp:TNTTNT which I started). Here, you didn't argue "TNT" specifically but it seemed superficially similar. Please accept my apology for putting your reasonable comment in the same box as some previous TNT-arguers and for my blasting out in your direction, inappropriately. Thank you for contributing here, instead (and thank you likewise to Uncle G also). Your point that you were not sure of the relationship between the two things is quite reasonable, too. And in fact it looks to me now like Museo Espacio is a different thing, and that La Estacion Theme Park ought to be moved/renamed to Complejo Tres Centurias instead. --Doncram (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since I maybe didn't make myself clear in my nomination somehow, my issues are WP:N and WP:V, a guideline and a policy. SL93 (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps with the search for sources, this is the es:Museo Ferrocarrilero de Aguascalientes and the es:Complejo Tres Centurias in the es:Barrio de la Estación (Aguascalientes). Railfan23, you are the one person doing the right thing here. Keep at it. ☺ Although if an article can be renamed and rewritten, that is something that any editor with an account can do, no administrator tools required. It is even possible, I have heard, to do it whilst an AFD discussion is going on. Uncle G (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge per WP:ATD; WP:BITE; WP:PRESERVE, &c. Here's an English-language source which seems relevant: Recognition of industrial heritage in Aguascalientes, Mexico. I can only see the first page but it may help us forward. Andrew D. (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging or keeping would be fine if we could verify the article. SL93 (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Old Railway Station Museum article has a title sounding like it must be in Cleveland or some other place in the U.S. It was created in ancient times, 12 October 2005, by i.p. editor 12.144.179.218 at a name which is apparently a translation, but that was a poor decision and/or should be revisited. Like we have Museo del Prado not "Prado Museum". IMO it should be moved/renamed to some name reflecting better its actual name and/or usage in guidebooks and other sources, perhaps "Museo Ferrocarrilero de Aguascalientes" or some name reflecting "Estacion", depending. It is not even wikilinked from its mention in List_of_museums_in_Mexico#Aguascalientes because no one would expect that the Wikipedia article name would be so different. It was only just now wikilinked from La Estacion Theme Park article by Railfan.

The "La Estacion Theme Park" article was created also on 12 October 2005‎ also by editor 12.144.179.218, who judged it was a different thing than the museum. It seems to me to correspond to the Spanish wikipedia article es:Complejo Tres Centurias, which is about a complex, "un parque temático ubicado en el Barrio de la Estación de la Ciudad de Aguascalientes", and it includes the plaza, "La Plaza de las Tres Centurias". Maybe in fact there was in 2005 promotion of an official "La Estacion Theme Park" name for the complex including the plaza, or maybe that was the i.p. editor's attempt to compose an English translation of what they thought the name should be, while locally it was then and/or now more known as "Complejo Tres Centurias". IMO the plaza itself could possibly merit an article, but would be better covered in a larger article about the complex. It would probably be good now for the "La Estacion Theme Park" article to be moved/renamed to "Complejo Tres Centurias" or "Tres Centurias Complex" or the like. The proper AFD outcome for that would be "Keep", with recommendation that it also be moved/renamed or with recommendation that a wp:RM be opened to consider that move. ("Move/rename" alone is not a proper AFD outcome; it is not an option tracked in wp:AFDSTATS; "Keep" properly describes the action of keeping the content, and moving/renaming is an editing decision like other editing to be decided at Talk page of the article.) --Doncram (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in Old Railway Station Museum; no need for two permastubs and this way we can get one respectable page. Just Chilling (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the Article with a main Article as Old Railway Station Museum.Forest90 (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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