Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 July	20 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 redirect to Ethan Van Sciver. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 16:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberfrog

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

Minor comic character that contains only promotional references. Fails WP:GNG and potentially DePRODed by a sock (first and only edit to contest prod). Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 15:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Way too long for a stub and doesn't have the notability for all that text. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - have to agree with all of the above MaskedSinger (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ethan Van Sciver, which has a enough information about the comic to inform a reader. The series received some print attention in the mid 1990s (referenced here), and with the upcoming new material, it could be restored with some better sources in the future. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a character page, Ethan Van Sciver does not explain the character in any way ~~and does not elaborate on the publication history.~~ I will Edit Cyberfrog to include a short character bio.

EDIT: 'Cyberfrog:Bloodhoney' is the highest grossing crowdfunded comic to date, which makes it of note. There is no shortage of coverage of Cyberfrog's publication and sales (as you have brought to my attention by correcting me about Ethan Van Sciver's bibliography) I have added to the sales information for 'Cyberfrog: Bloodhoney', and will add sales information for the original Cyberfrog publications as I find it. The only thing that is not accurate about the 'sales' figures is that the number of backers is less than the number of units sold (because several perks give you 2 or more copies of the book). There are 3 crowdfunding campaigns for Cyberfrog: Bloodhoney (for variant covers)and all of them are listed in the references of the page but I'll add them more clearly. I don't feel like there's any way to argue that Cyberfrog is not, now more than ever, highly notable. I also fail to see how an indiegogo page, which clearly shows the book people paid for, how many people paid for it and how much money was raised isn't an independent source? User:JerseyDevilYoutube Comment moved and sig added by Argento Surfer

- If you look at the Bibliography section of Van Sciver's page, there's a list of all the Cyberfrog comics he's made, including the publisher, length of run, and publication dates. Your additions, while well-meaning, do not address the concerns raised here. You need to find evidence that Cyberfrog is notable, such as detailed reviews or coverage of its publication and sales. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Highest grossing crowdfunding may be a claim of significance (which only avoids a speedy deletion). Moreover a crowdfunding page is not an independent source, which are required for articles. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure how you added sales data for a book that, as of twelve days ago, wasn't published... I also revised the information you added to the article - you said "nearly $1 million", but the sources you provided say "half a million" Argento Surfer (talk) 23:36, 17 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) 13:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They raised over half a million dollars for the first issue. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/ethan-van-sciver-s-cyberfrog-bloodhoney-comic-book#/ I have added it to the comics Wikiproject notice since they are better suited to find sources for this sort of thing. Dream Focus 01:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 01:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ethan Van Sciver for now, with no prejudice against restoring it at a later date if its revival leads to more notability. As it stands now, none of the sources can be considered substantial coverage in reliable, secondary sources. There is a decent chance that the comic could garner more substantial coverage in the future, however, and a Redirect would allow the article's history to be retained. Rorshacma (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: I would also support a redirect as well. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:11, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 20:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodies Squad

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

The sources do not show notability. One is a press release and the other is run of the mill presentation and user comments. Fails WP:WEBCRIT and WP:TVSHOW Dom from Paris (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- airs on national TV network in Poland. Some sources from Polish article indicate reliability sources. [1], [2]. Additional links are not already on the Polish page, but indicate regular media coverage of the show: [3], [4], [5], [6].

Comedy Central is a pay-for channel that has a 0.36% market share and as such I dont think mcan be defined as having a "broad audience" to meet the TVSHOW criteria. I haven't been able to nalyse the other sources you have found yet to see if they get it past the GNG mark. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:20, 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 02:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not a great article as it stands, but it has two refs already, and the corresponding Polish article has more refs and content that can be used to expand it. --Slashme (talk) 08:38, 2 August 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 09:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shinkansen Henkei Robo Shinkalion characters

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

Fails WP:NLIST. This is typical WP:FANCRUFT Dom from Paris (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:*Delete per WP:TNT, the references can be saved for a future list. I normally would vote keep here but this list dives too deeply into a fan's point of view. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Looks like just basic indisputable information. Dream Focus 20:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only had to look quickly before I saw "Driver of the Shinkalion E3 Tsubasa and Shinkalion E3 Tsubasa Iron Wing. A 10-year-old who lives in Yonezawa, Yamagata Prefecture". What the heck is a "Shinkalion E3 Tsubasa" or Shinkalion E3 Tsubasa Iron Wing? The list needs a major rewrite so it isn't from a fan's WP:POV hence my delete vote to blow it up and start over. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Describing the content of a work of fiction, using the accurate names and terms of elements of that work, is not the same thing as a fan POV. This does not seem excessively detailed or involve any kind of POV/OR interpretation of the content, and if anything your example here would be calling for more detail to provide context ("Driver of two transforming mechas, the Shinkalion E3 Tusbasa and Shinkalion E3 Tsubasa Iron Wing"), not less. That would seem to be significant and relevant in a show about transforming mechas, just as it's significant in the context of Star Wars that Han Solo and Chewbacca pilot the Millennium Falcon space freighter. If you can give us an idea of what you think such a description should look like instead, that may help us understand where you're coming from. But for now your complaint does not seem accurate here. postdlf (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is, in Star Wars the "Millennium Falcon" is listed as a "space freighter", and readers here are supposed to know what a "Shinkalion" is? I'm all for keeping character lists per @Masumrezarock100: below, but for some there is just too much to be done. Maybe it would be best if someone who hadn't heard of the series redo the list? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my comment about adding "more detail to provide context." Which is fixable and so should be addressed through editing, not deletion. postdlf (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will relent and hope for a massive re-write. I might touch the article here as well as I have never seen or heard about the series until now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Complaining that you don't know what a Shinkalion is when that word is in the name of the series, is ridiculous. People wouldn't see a character list without knowing what the series was about, and would thus know that's what the robots are called. List of Neon Genesis Evangelion characters mentions they are the pilots of evas, without telling you what an eva is. Dream Focus 18:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The anime has a crapload of characters http://www.shinkalion.com/anime/character/ and Shinkalions http://www.shinkalion.com/anime/shinkalion/ What could be removed are the episodic enemies (Monster of the Week) http://www.shinkalion.com/anime/enemy/ I don't really see where there's a fan pov in the current profiles presented? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: I have blanked the section at your suggestion. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the list, but if it is deleted then the character section of Shinkansen Henkei Robo Shinkalion should be restored, featuring the main characters as a bare minimum. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, character lists are standard coverage for notable series, and may be WP:SPLIT due to WP:SIZE. Whether this can be trimmed and merged back to the parent article is an editorial decision for those knowledgeable with the subject, not for AFD to resolve, but in any event outright deletion is not a valid option per WP:ATD. I'm also struck by how inaccurate the deletion !voter is above, as the descriptions here are very brief and not "fan"-POV. postdlf (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Lists_of_anime_and_manga_characters shows just how common these are. Sometimes someone tries to delete one, and it always almost ends in being kept. If its too long for the main article its split off like this. How its always been. Dream Focus 20:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And this is exactly the problem. They have become common despite not being encyclopedic and being pure FANCRUFT. But hey if they always get kept why not keep this one! --Dom from Paris (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Start a RFC about it, and discuss the issue there. Dream Focus 12:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If they always get kept, that means there is consensus to keep them. You can always ignore content you are not interested in; it’s a free wiki. postdlf (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Postdlf: You know as well as I do that there are certain subjects that get kept not because they meet notability criteria but because there is a solid base of fans that form a consensus against policy and guidelines. Notably certain sports subjects, certain types of music and manga/anime. When you say I should just ignore it does that apply to all new pages patrolling? 99% of the pages I patrol do not interest me in the least, I try and apply the guidelines and policies and nominate those that do not meet them and tag those that can be tagged and mark as reviewed those that have no issues. I find it odd that an admin would tell a patroller to ignore pages that don't interest him. The "it's a free wiki" is something I've heard from inexperienced editors who do not want to follow the rules here for exemple --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And others may interpret guidelines differently than you. There's a trap in thinking that "rules" exist in a vacuum outside of how they are applied. I'm not aware of a specific pro-anime bias, and it's not a subject I have interest in myself, but as I noted above, "character lists are standard coverage for notable series" and are consensus-supported, whether retained in the parent article or split due to size. postdlf (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Postdlf: But here's the thing...unless I'm very much mistaken the anime doesn't have a separate page, or at least there isn't a link to that page on the main page. If the anime doesn't have a page how can we have a WP:SPINOUT for a non-existent page. Shouldn't we have a page first for the anime before we decide that we can't have room and list the dozens and dozens of characters and the actors voicing them? Shouldn't we first have a list on the page and eventually collapse it before creating a list page? Dom from Paris (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The multimedia franchise to which these characters belong has an article that functions as a parent for this list. I'm not particularly concerned about hairsplitting about type(s) of media beyond that, and as this is the first time you've raised this question, ten days after your nomination, you obviously aren't either. Merge to that parent has already been suggested, including by me. Really the more this discussion proceeds, the more it shows how inappropriate AFD is for resolving this kind of content and organization decision. Yet no discussion had been first attempted on the talk page of this list, the parent article, or the creator/main editor's talk page. postdlf (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's the first time I mention it because I hadn't realised that there wasnt an article about the anime. I disagree that AFD is not an appropriate place to discuss whether a page is notable or not as per the different policies guidelines and essays but that is just mu opinion. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | talk _ 16:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you take a look at Category:Lists_of_anime_and_manga_characters, you'll see a bunch of lists like this. Also Category:Lists_of_anime_episodes. Masum Reza^📞 09:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I have no objection to re-creation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added some sources. I oppose mergeing this list with the main article because it's too large. Masum Reza^📞 00:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. If it is notable, let it be recreated with actual sources. The Keep votes offer absolutely no arguments as to why the article should be kept, instead making pure WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. Are we sure this isn't straight up trolling at this point? "This article should be kept because they are common" is not a valid answer._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you TNT this, it can be merged into the main article, but keep as simple bullet lists. There are still a ton of characters, like with Majestic Prince (manga). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would like some extra time to work on the article. Worse case scenario, a drafting is a recommended decision.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify so that it can be worked on further by anyone until it's up to decent standards. I'm sick of feeling inclined to relist this discussion a second. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC) Update: switching to keep per Postdif since it seems to be a decent WP:CFORK due to the size of the anime's ensemble cast. Still, improvements are recommended. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FoxyGrampa75: You should be more careful when relisting. Non admins are subject to relist bias. Masum Reza^📞 04:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Masumrezarock100: Thank you. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Postdlf. Character lists like this are necessary when the media in question features a lot of characters. Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:26, 9 August 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. Also eligible for G5 speedy deletion per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vasu1206. MER-C 08:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RentSeeker Inc

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

Non-notable corporation. Nothing aside from press releases and glancing mentions on due diligence. Does not otherwise meet GNG. Jack Frost (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Rentseeker is a notable company in Canada. The notability is justified on various trusted news websites such as Huffpost, Daily Hive, CTV News, Global News, RenX, Torontostoreys and others. These resources are reliable and independent of the subject and not the press releases. It is also listed on BBB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPKSingh (talk • contribs) 11:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Not notable at all and clearly WP:PROMO, with Alexa rank 9,056 in Canada which is very low and the website has no traffic at all plus no news coverage other than being just mentioned in a few. The only in-depth article about the website is a press release paid article. Clearly does not meet WP:GNG. Best - Blake44 (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT (filled with typos), WP:RS (weak on the sourcing) and WP:GNG (it's local to Toronto). It's badly written WP:SPAM. It's possible that a decent stub could be written, but it's not worth the effort. Bearian (talk) 14:23, 30 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 all. No support for deletion. Some were open to merging to a combined NBL awards page while voting a generic "oppose", but it was not clear if that was a primary or secondary choice. Determing if there is consensus for that type of merge can be done outside of this AfD. While guideline WP:Notability says that notability does "not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page" and guideline Wikipedia:Article size also allows for merging of small articles, both leave it up to consensus on a per-case basis.

While the nomination mentioned multiple pages, WP:MULTIAFD was not followed with notication on only NBL (United States) Rookie of the Year Award. However, given that the page creator participated and there is a quorum, it seems reasonable that there is consensus to keep all the pages. Nomination of List of NBL (United States) season scoring leaders was withdrawn too late. —Bagumba (talk) 09:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NBL (United States) Rookie of the Year Award

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

This article, along with a few others, were collectively splitoff from parent article but does not meet WP:SPINOUT requirements. DA1 (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The main article in question is, in its original state, less than 35,000 bytes, far below the approx. 100k recommended for splitting. The article nominated here is roughly 4k bytes. Other articles I am also proposing be deleted are:

The spinouts are unnecessary, unconcise and make readability difficult and tedious by being spread across several short articles. DA1 (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose – These mirror similar NBA award pages, and the NBL is a direct predecessor to the NBA. I completely disagree with the "unconcise" comment; they're independently much more concise than many other sports' award and honors list articles. It's not difficult to navigate, either, considering Category:National Basketball League (United States) awards exists. Furthermore, every single player who appears on any of these nominated articles has direct blue links in their infoboxes to them (see Bobby McDermott for example), and deleting or redirecting these would create hundreds of "false advertising" redirects on those players' articles. I see absolutely no reason to delete or redirect these articles, as they follow exact standards by hundreds of other sports' award list articles. SportsGuy789 (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment – Having independent articles on these awards allows for fuller depth on facts, statistics, and context. Not to mention some of the lists that were in the parent article were factually inaccurate (I cleaned up a slew of mistakes when creating the articles). SportsGuy789 (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you plan to expand the articles on Rookie, Coach and MVP? The company has been defunct for decades. If there shall be more content added, then please create the articles when there is extensive content, not before it. DA1 (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, this is a "would-be, could-be" argument. It does not actually address the issue at hand: many or most of the spinoffs do not meet WP:SPINOUT, and IMO does not conform to WP:AVOIDSPLIT and WP:PAGEDECIDE:

If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate article, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. It is not uncommon for editors to suggest that articles nominated for deletion instead be merged into a parent article.

There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic [...]
Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page (as at Music of the Final Fantasy VII series). Other times, when many similar notable topics exist, it is impractical to collect them into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy. In that case, a viable option is creating a new list or category for the broader topic and linking to the individual articles from it (as with Category:Restaurants in New York City).

I would like others to address these concerns related to existing guidelines, and not only share anecdotal points. DA1 (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per SportGuy789. Under no circumstances should these be placed in the NBL parent page. Now if they should be merged they should be in a list of NBL achievements, but I oppose that as well.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@UCO2009bluejay: They were already merged in their original state. Do you genuinely think NBL Rookie, NBL MVP and NBL Coach, which are articles of roughly a small table each (between 3000 and 7000 bytes), deserve their own articles? We could have an article for scoring leaders but I see absolutely no reason why readers must click through 3-4 additional articles just to read those 3 tables earlier mentioned. I have dealt with this myself in the past where I wanted to seek some information and ended up going through several articles (and then clicking back and forth, just to compare said information); it was frustrating. This is inconsiderate to readers and only serves to satisfy editor egos (of creating New Articles or maintaining stylistic choices). DA1 (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so the root cause of this assault is you being frustrated in the past and didn't like it. Also funny how you somehow think this pertains to editor ego, which is not at all a veiled insult directly at me considering I'm the creator and pretty much only editor of these. Since you're a mind reader, what am I thinking about doing this coming weekend? SportsGuy789 (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @SportsGuy789: The NBA being a predecessor to NBL isn't an adequate argument for why the Wikipedia article on NBL should be broken up into sub-topics. They do not meet size requirements to be SPUNOUT whereas the NBA topics obviously do. You're making a stylistic argument there, to maintain consistency between the two completely independent articles. But the fact is: this mass-split makes the topic needlessly difficult to read. They were all in the same article, and that article was not long or difficult to read to warrant a split (Have you seen just how long various Good-rated articles are, especially in Bios and History?). I can see an argument for having an article for scoring leaders but not the others which are absurdly short. DA1 (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a stylistic argument, too, considering the SPINOUT is a guideline and not a mandate / requirement. We're not talking about Good-rated articles, we're talking about the threshold of notability in which an award or honor article should exist, and users can always be bold to expand them. Just because these are not as long as the NBA articles does not equate to them being merged into a parent article. SportsGuy789 (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing to keep in mind is that SPINOUT does not preclude shorter articles from being split; it merely says that beyond a certain length, it is suggested to consider splitting them even if there were other stylistic reasons not to do so. SPINOUT leads with [v]ery large articles should be split into logically separate articles, but nowhere does it say that articles that aren't very large can't be split for other reasons. The closest it comes to that is in the size table, where it says that for articles less than 40 kB, [l]ength alone does not justify division. This clearly implies that there may be other valid reasons to split an article of this length. SportsGuy789 has made a stylistic (not length) decision to split them, so we should concentrate our discussion on those stylistic choices and their validity. CThomas³ (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I read WP:SPINOUT as guidance on spinoff articles, while these are lists. Seems to me that these meet Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists which indicates one of the criteria for creation being “Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources.“ These lists seem to satisfy this. Rikster2 (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and this probably should have been a merger discussion, not an AfD, based on the proposal of the nominator. The only reason to delete in this case would be for failing WP:GNG via WP:LISTN for stand-alone lists. While some of the above lists are currently lacking independent sources, based on the age of the topic and the independent sources that are there, they probably exist in print in the cities that had teams sufficiently enough for each to meet LISTN. (Maybe someone with a Newspapers.com subscription can provide more evidence.) However, as each list is quite small, if someone were to suggest merging all of them into a List of NBL awards article, I also see no problem with that using the WP:SIZERULE and it would seem to almost definitely meet GNG as a topic of NBL awards. Yosemiter (talk) 19:48, 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. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 16:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Votescam

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

This is a very strange article about a book that might be notable. However although there may be multiple and probably independent sources, I’m seriously doubtful about their reliability.

For the most part the article appears to summarise the content of the book, but then veers into what seems to be original research with a blow by blow account of phone calls made after the book’s authors were dead.

The sourcing is mostly to a single publication, ‘Hidden History’ which looks to me like a collection of conspiracy theories. I can’t see the Gore Vidal citation or the Miami Herald one, though the date of the MH ref indicates that the piece was written nearly a decade before the book was published. The ‘Grand Theft 2000’ source is only a passing ref.

Turning to the talk page I see a long explanation from another editor about Alex Jones’ interest in the book and how we shouldn’t expect to see many mainstream sources because the MSM are part of the conspiracy ‘and therefore, other Wikipedia editors working for the corrupt groups involved will see fit to suppress knowledge of this book.’

I hope my cheque is in the post. Mccapra (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK, have been unable to find reviews in reliable sources (does Hidden Histories actually discuss/review it or just summarise what is in the book?), note: I am not part of the WP/Corporate world conspiracy ...... or am I? (cue ominous music). Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither. It devotes one word to the book, "blockbuster", then discusses the brothers and the daughter. Uncle G (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks.Coolabahapple (talk) 07:50, 20 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) 10:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of reviews by reliable sources means it doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. Disclaimer: I am definitely part of whatever conspiracy is being alleged here. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For all the reasons above. Also, we need to bury the truth before the normies find out. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is regurgitating conspiracy theories in Wikipedia's voice, and a single book discussing it is insufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:20, 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 delete. ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 16:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Dominic Washington

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

Article makes no claim of notability. Subject is a NN college footballplayer, realtor, businessman. Much of the article is about a conviction for selling "medical marijuana". This appears to be soley a routine local issue with some press coverage only in Montana - WP:BLP1E. MB 16:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. College football does not pass WP:NSPORT, nor does a conviction establish notability except maybe perhaps WP:ONEEVENT. (Also, might be undue weight which would be iffy w/ BLP). (Also, immaterial to this discussion, but the "career" reads an awful like a resume). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable local businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a case with controversy, covered by reliable media sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incogneeto (talk • contribs) 06:11, 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) 10:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are RSs, but they are covering a single event, which is not sufficient per WP:BLP1E. Other than that single event, the individual would not meet the WP:GNGs Hugsyrup (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely paid-for spam created in violation of the Terms of Use. I have blocked the author for this. MER-C 15:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable former college athlete running a non-notable cannabis operation with a non-notable real estate agent career on the side, non-notably convicted of a drug offense. I note the only "Keep" voice is the editor who created the article, who is, as MER-C suggests, likely an undisclosed paid editor, judging by their edit history on this and other articles. TJRC (talk) 15:47, 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 keep. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 16:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Giuseppa Robucci

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

Article and sources do not assert notability beyond reaching an advanced age: she was born, had children, got very old, chopped wood, broke a hip, and died. This lady's placement in our List of Italian supercentenarians is sufficient (with a redirect on her name). — JFG ^talk 23:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, as an WP:ATD, I advocate a redirect to the Italian list without merging any trivia about her life. — JFG ^talk 19:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sustained significant coverage over the course of 15+ years. It doesn't matter why she's notable, just that she is notable. Once she is deemed to be notable, then a basic biography of her life is warranted, and there's more than enough info for a stand-alone biography. schetm (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2019(UTC)

She did NOT have "15 years" of WP:SIGCOV. There was one short feature for her 100th birthday, as is extremely common, and over 10 years later she got some WP:ROUTINE oldster coverage over a few years. There is nothing notable about her that doesn't fit snuggly in a list entry. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOPAGE and WP:GNG. Only received routine oldster feature coverage. Just the typical fluff born, married, had kids, longevity secret, random undefined factoid chopped wood until a certain age, died. Her list entry at List of Italian supercentenarians and elsewhere is enough. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's a lot of room for interpretation of WP:NOPAGE and WP:ROUTINE. Even though it is common for subjects like this to receive coverage on their 100th birthday, reaching 100 is extraordinary.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvng (talk • contribs)

References

^ http://www.genealogyintime.com/GenealogyResources/Articles/how_many_people_live_to_100_page1.html

Delete or Redirect to appropriate list per WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB. Sources are routine birthday articles and don't tell us much more than the usual longevity nothingness of born, got married, had kids, got old, died. Entry on a list is enough. CommanderLinx (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Schetm. 71.161.233.35 (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing of encyclopedic value here. And while I hope (but don't expect) to live to a hundred, that's not a claim for notability. In my eyes, there's no notability, but even if there were, WP:NOPAGE comes into play, because there's nothing of interest to present that cannot be presented in a list article. Remember, notability is a necessary condition for having a stand-alone article, but it's not sufficient. --Randykitty (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would be inclined to favor a keep, considering her age of 116 and her coverage on the media. Garlicolive (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy or guideline that the "oldest x" is notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:SIGCOV. 45.228.209.44 (talk) 08:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agreed it meets WP:SIGCOV. "Once she is deemed to be notable, then a basic biography of her life is warranted, and there's more than enough info for a stand-alone biography" as per schetm. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:23, 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) 10:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Italian language media coverage from WP:RSs provides further information of a notable nature - at the time of her death was the oldest person in Europe (so more than just a very old person) and was in 2011 the oldest mayor of an Italian town.--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy or guideline that the "oldest x" is notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets WP:SIGCOV. Drunk in Paris (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Italian supercentenarians. She's clearly notable enough to be mentioned in some detail there, but the coverage she did receive will never be more than a couple short paragraphs. Perfect for a minibio, that list isn't overly long, and merging won't lead to any loss of meaningful content (i.e. there's no reason to list the names of her non-notable children). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although the majority support keeping this article (along with one merge) it is clear we have no consensus, nor are we likly to get one. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I spoke too soon! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources". While some sources cited in the article absolutely do not represent WP:SIGCOV, some of these do (even before her death that was widely reported), The Local [7], Corriere della Sera [8], FoggiaToday, a branch of Citynews (Italy) [9], a newspaper La Gazzetta di San Severo [10], and I am sure more if some did a deeper dive. She was even noticed by Guinness World Records [11]]! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:52, 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 delete. ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 16:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thyroid UK

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

Article is currently mostly sourced to the charity's own website/social media accounts, plus a couple of primary sources. I've looked for independent coverage, and found some passing mentions in news media, but nothing that told me anything significant about the organisation. Seems to fail WP:NORG GirthSummit _(blether) 10:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the nom says, it's very hard to find anything beyond a representative being used for a quote in occasion articles about Thyroid conditions. Not enough for notability. Hug^syrup 10:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only that the subject fails WP:NCORP, but also the article reads very promotional in nature (which is against what Wikipedia represents per WP:PROMO). Nothing to find in my searches either (the best thing that comes up is a passing mention at [12]). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:18, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 21:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Thomas (priest)

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

There is a presumption of notability to bishops of major territorial churches, but this does not extend to archdeacons, who are subordinate officials, having supervision of part of the diocese. There is no reference to show notability here other than routine biographical notices DGG ( talk ) 09:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 09:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Comment. I looked through the 106 Google results for "Walter Thomas" "Church of Ireland", and the only result relating to this particular Walter Thomas seems to be the Fasti Ecclesiae Hibernicae, cited in the article. This book simply lists the dates on which Thomas held certain positions, and since these positions aren't inherently notable as the nom points out I don't think it establishes notability all by itself. I couldn't find the reference to him in citation 1 (no page number given and no luck on GBooks), and citation 6 7 is just a transcript of an email which mentions him in a genealogical table. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 17:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my !vote for now since a new source has been added and I haven't thought through setting a precedent for the office of archdeacon as a whole. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 22:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No presumption of notability, but archdeacons are usually kept - see the template at the bottom of the article. St Anselm (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm and DGG: I am guessing that the article was created to fill in a navbox link. All the articles I clicked on in the "Archdeacons of Killaloe" navbox, from John Hall (Archdeacon of Killaloe) and Richard Daniel (priest) through to the last entry Ernest Murray seem to be in a similar state, so—without prior judgement on the notability of those other articles—I think this might imply the need for a wider discussion about how to handle this category of officeholders. If they are generally not covered in any depth in RS then it might be better to collapse them into a list at the Archdeacon of Killaloe (etc.) article, with links to separate articles if and when they're independently notable. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 22:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also look at these

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Plemth

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Booth (priest)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Henry Cameron

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael John Keatinge

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Raphael

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Tuttebury

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas de Bodham

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wandlyn Snelgrove

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Verschoyle

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Wolfe (priest)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Wall (priest)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Falkiner Goold

Bashereyre (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bashereyre. I haven't read through all of the discussions yet but the general theme seems to be that there are many archdeacons who are independently notable but the office itself doesn't create a presumption of notability. So the problem then is creating such a presumption via things like a navbox full of red links—but I'm not sure how to fix that. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 15:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At most Weak keep, perhaps delete -- In England the Church of England is the dominant church, so that it may be appropriate for most archdeacons to have articles. This is not the case in Ireland, where only the ascendancy were Protestant, the majority of the population being Catholic. On this basis I can make a distinction between England and Ireland. The archdeacon is a member of the cathedral chapter. In his case he served as archdeacon for just a year and then moved on (via precentor) to be cathedral treasurer, both NN roles. In this particular case I am not sure we need the article. However, then archdeacons navbox needs to be amended so that we do not have redlinks for people of whom we will probably never know much. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't make a distinction here: the basis for bishops being notable is their social role, and in the 18th c., as here, the CoE was still Established & had the same official role, as far as the governing classes were concerned. Whatever the rule, it would make more sense and be more in accord with NPOV, to apply it to any church with a substantial representation, rather than try to make this sort of distinction. DGG ( talk ) 09:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi its me again. These Afds never generate much response, largely I suspect because they are so uncontroversial. Maybe a definite ruling on Archdeacons is needed; and also perhaps on Monsenieurs (?) in the RC church Bashereyre (talk) 10:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bashereyre: Afaik there is definitely no presumption of notability for a Catholic monsignor, and a quick search of the AfD archives suggests that people have made that point explicitly. At least until recently, tons of people were given the title of monsignor automatically, e.g. the canons at certain diocesan cathedrals, who would not merit an article just because of that. That said, on the issue of archdeacons, lack of response generally indicates that people are unsure, not that it's uncontroversial (which would mean a lot of people responding with one option). This particular article still looks very borderline to me. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 17:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well referenced, enough to demonstrate notability regardless of title.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are four sources, one of which fails verification, the other is self-published; the third talks about two people who may or may not be the same individual, and only the fourth is definitely about him, and amounts to a couple of notices. So I'm not sure about that at all. I won't press it though, just replying since this was listed as a response to me. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 16:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to set an arbitrary bar for people never really works out, again and again. The better way is to see whether this historical person has xyr life and works recorded in depth in the history books, the ordinary multiple independent sources that document the subject in depth from identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy thing. By far the easiest reason that people with high office are often notable is that they are in the history books in detail. They are in things like the Dictionary of Irish Biography, or covered in detail in a parish/diocese/town history.
I have checked and this person is not in the DIB. The Fasti Ecclesiae Hibernicae does not support all of the content that it is being purported to support, either. It's mainly a bare list of dates and offices held, and Bashereyre has not spotted that the information about 1714 is a question, not a statement, so in fact you do not have a source confirming that this person actually was an archdeacon, as the source that you have questions whether this is a matching record. So the whole setting the arbitrary bar at archdeacons idea is wrong for a second reason.
Looking, I cannot find anything beyond mentions in lists, like the sources at hand. This person's life and works appear not to be documented in depth beyond directories of office-holders, anywhere, either cited or that I can find; and Wikipedia is not a directory of people, which is all that that gets us. No historian has actually done the legwork, including for starters conclusively matching up the questioned records to form a definitive narrative.
Uncle G (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Uncle G: I totally missed the quaerere. If this article is (potentially) mixing up two different people then that's a whole new problem. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 16:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have edited the article now to note that it's not certain per the source —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 16:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Archdeacons are not presumed notable, although they often could be, based on depth of coverage in sources. FWIW, my paternal grandmother was C. of I. Bearian (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing is not good enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could you please relist the discussion, so that I can continue my searches next monday? Thomas wrote a letter to William Smyth about John Allen. My feeling is that there might be something interesting to find… Genium . 01:21, Aug 2, 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 09:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Argonne National Laboratory. Consensus that independent notability isn't established. There's already a v.short summary of the MIC in the Argonne article, to which editors can add further from the page history as they wish. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Integrated Center for Computational Materials

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

This is a division of Argonne National Laboratory. There is no indication that it is separately notable. DGG ( talk ) 09:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I agree with everything that DGG says, but surely a redirect is the more obvious solution than deletion - unless there is something I'm missing? Hug^syrup 10:14, 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 delete. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 16:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kämmerer (modern)

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

The article seems hopelessly confused. As I understand it, Kämmerer according to the linked German article, and their article on de:Kammerherr. is the variant term for some regions of German for de:Kammerherr, roughly equivalent to our chamberlain, a specific position, or person holding that position. It is not the term for a government bureau on office, for which the general German word. is Kammer. Ref 1 seems totally irrelevant; Ref 2 defines other terms. DGG ( talk ) 09:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with Nom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nom. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:02, 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 20:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Machado

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

This person is not notable either as a journalist, a writer or a musician. – Fayenatic London 09:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article's creator Obocci (talk · contribs) has only ever edited the one article, apart from this talk page comment claiming ownership of the image in the article. He also created the Portuguese wikipedia page pt:Felipe Machado and has made only one unrelated edit in that wiki. – Fayenatic London 20:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets notability per WP:AUTHOR as founder and guitar player for Band Viper which seem to be a big band in Portugal. However, article should probably get toned down a little and seems self promotional, probably created by person or someone associated with him. Peter303x (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: not entirely sure how the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR, but if none of his writing or business career is considered notable, at the very least the article could be redirected or merged to Viper (band) – the group have an AllMusic biography [13] and many of their albums have been reviewed by a variety of rock and metal music magazines, so the band pass notability. Richard3120 (talk) 13:47, 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 02:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 2 August 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. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 16:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Darquier

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

Non notable individual. She has only attracted tangential attention as a daughter of a notorious individual; relationships do not confer notability. Zerach (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - no claim of importance of significance, and "tangential" describes the coverage which is primarily about Louis Darquier de Pellepoix. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. seems uncontroversial. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Louis Darquier de Pellepoix. All the sources used are included in that article on her father, and she is mentioned there: that's sufficient. PamD 15:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to meet notability requirements on her own. Dunarc (talk) 20:42, 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. Tone 14:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moukdavanyh Santiphone

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

I am on the edge with regards to the notability of this singer. Also, a quick google check does not hield reliable sources. The added sources do not mention her in detail. I thus leave it here for community scrutiny. 10MB (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could pass WP:NMUSIC if the Lao Music Award is a major award? Atlantic306 (talk) 22:43, 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 03:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find significant coverage. The Laotian Wikipedia page has no sources to help us, just links to her Facebook and Youtube pages. I can't find much coverage of the Lao Music Awards either to prove her significance that way and their own website registration has lapsed. The language difference is a barrier and I'm open to the possibility that she's more important than I can verify, but unless a Lao speaker can help improve the article or at least find sources, I don't think this should stay. › Mortee _talk 20:15, 2 August 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. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 16:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Implausible

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

Non-notable TV show that had one series and aired once in 2006. Very little online which leads me to believe this isn't worthy of an article. Anarchyte (talk | work) 08:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk | work) 08:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability established, could only find a few mentions in reliable sources. Personally seems like it would have made for a good PROD. 2 equally viable redirect targets, so couldn't specify 1 target. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TVSHOW, the fact it aired on Sky One means nothing if there aren't sources, which links back to WP:GNG which requires significant coverage in reliale sources. Unsourced article (WP:V policy applies), nothing to be found in searches besides the casting info. Obvious delete. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:10, 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 redirect to Identity and Democracy#History. Any desired content to be merged can be accessed from the page history. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 16:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

European Alliance of Peoples and Nations

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

European Alliance of Peoples and Nations was only a working title for the Identity and Democracy group--ElTres (talk) 08:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Identity and Democracy#History and merge relevant info to the latter article. This group never really existed in the European Parliament, so it's hard to see how it would deserve a stand-alone article. Zerach (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Identity and Democracy#History and Merge info into that article, per Zerach. Bkissin (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Identity and Democracy#History - MA Javadi (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Identity and Democracy#History --SalmanZ (talk) 21:04, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawing nomination, with apologies - I didn't find the book reviews and the additional information found by other contributors to this discussion. Thank you for your work. (non-admin closure) Hugsyrup (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edward H. Clarke

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

PRODed with the following explanation, which still holds true: A summary of an interesting but, as far as I can see, non-notable career. I can find almost no sources beyond a brief obituary which, despite being in the very WP:RS Washington Post, actually appears to have been written and placed by family or friends. Otherwise, does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO etc.

Prod endorsed by TonyTheTiger

Prod removed by Andrew Davidson (no explanation provided) Hugsyrup (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject's work in economics is influential, being associated with multiple Nobel prizes. There is now an extensive literature on the VCG mechanism and the subject here is the C. See Microeconomics; Game Theory and Mechanism Design; Mechanism Design Theory; Princeton. So, this passes WP:ANYBIO, "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". Andrew D. (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Google Scholar says that the subject's paper "Multipart pricing of public goods", of which he is the sole author, has been cited 3650 times. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I improved the sourcing, including finding multiple reviews of his book and a scholarly obituary that confirms that he was shortlisted for the Nobel. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:56, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Odinia International

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

A website that is mentioned briefly in one Vice article. All other references are to the site itself, private blogs or web tools like Alexa. Couldn't find any other reliable sources. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Ffranc (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The targeting of this organization, its website, and its founder has recently become the subject of a congressional inquiry involving the FCC. It does not fall into the category of not being notable by any means. Another notable point is that the editor of this website it not a Neo Nazi and is an Oxford educated scholar. I have confirmed her credentials and have determined that this organization has no political affiliation and is not a neo Nazi organization. I have tried to edit this article and make it factual once or twice but my edits were deleted replaced with libel. I would not mind trying to make this into an unbiased and accurate article, since, after all, that is the stated goal of this online encyclopedia. User User talk :Wotanswarriors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wotanswarriors (talk • contribs) 00:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can do this with sources that fit WP:RS and which focus on Odinia International (not just mention it briefly) that would be excellent. If your sources are of the same kind as those currently in the article (blogs, database entries etc), then it's better to delete the article. Ffranc (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the section in the article in Vice, "One of the nation’s most notorious alt-right reconstructionist Pagans, Seana Fenner, explained to me that, “A few years ago, there wasn’t as much interest or knowledge about Odinism or Asatru.” In 2006, McNallen estimated that Asatruars or Odinists numbered between 10,000 to 20,000 in the United States. But along with the rise of Donald Trump and emboldened racists across the nation, Fenner claimed to me that her brand of racial Paganism is “becoming wildly popular.” White supremacist Asatruars and Odinists are especially thriving in US prisons. Fenner identifies as an Odinist. She also believes that the Holocaust was a lie and has an entire page on her website dedicated to “white genocide” where she claims, “It is only white nations that are being targeted for genocide by immigration.” In an especially chilling post on Memorial Day in 2017, she wrote of hoping to avenge all those soldiers who had died for “Jewish wars.” Fenner also told me that she believes that non-white people cannot participate in Heathenry or Odinism because that would “[make the] religion into a joke.” The 74-year-old is the founder of Odinia International, a group with more than 5,000 followers on Facebook that advocates for the restoration of “native European religion.” Fenner sees Christianity as a violent, foreign, Jewish religion that was forced onto European peoples. On the other hand, “Odinism is the final stage of deprogramming,” she told me. And it helped her enhance her “tribal identity.” Her main goal as an Odinist leader today is to “restore the native religion [of Europeans]” and she believes “white nationalism, or white identity, is central to” that mission. To Fenner, the reason her task of converting Christians and “eclectic” Paganists to racist Odinism has gotten easier is simple: “It’s something people are drawn to because they wish to have this connection to their ancestors and their own native spirituality.” She finds there are two kinds of people drawn to her faith: those who “want to practice [their] own religion as part of [their] identity,” and those who feel they are being “marginalized and blamed for things they didn’t do.” The latter reason embodies the myth of reverse racism against whites that has helped fuel the rise of the alt-right in general. This concept of “white genocide” has had a similar impact internationally in terms of mobilizing and energizing racists. On November 11, 2017, more than 60,000 white nationalists marched in the streets of Poland, rallying around this notion of a “Pure Poland, white Poland!” and demanding that the “Refugees get out!” For Fenner, this was a “wonderful” development she’d love to see happen in the US. “The only thing that would have been better would be if the Poles had bodily removed the non-Europeans from their nation, and sent the antifa protesters to a black nation in Africa where they could get all the diversity they need. But perhaps that will come.” Fenner and her extremist group Odinia International are not isolated bad apples. Instead, they stand alongside ill-famed names like Stephen McNallen and his Asatru Folk Assembly, Jack Donovan and The Wolves of Vinland, and countless others who intertwine hate with Paganism. This hate has been trickling down, infecting Pagan communities across the nation, which has been especially disconcerting for practitioners of colour."
Merge Fenner's name and a couple of sentences about this FRINGE group to Heathenry (new religious movement)#Racial issues. The Vice source is solid, but it is the only WP:RS we have on this vile ORG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory: There's only really one sentence in that quote about Odinia International. There is more about the founder and her views, but not the website. The Heathenry article is FA rated and already has substantial coverage with better sources. I don't see how it would be improved by anything from this article. Ffranc (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is demonstrably not a fringe movement. Its founder has far better, more relevant credentials than any other Neo-Pagan group's leader I know of, its membership is apparently in every US state, as well as the U.K., and rapidly growing, and there are other sources, particularly radio shows, such as Red Ice, which cover it. In addition to this, the founder of this group has done substantial scholarly work in regard to the restoration of native European religion in the form of a series of documentaries. Encyclopedias are meant to be unbiased so I would like to make changes which present accurate facts and all view points rather than obvious defamation of character, if no one minds particularly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wotanswarriors (talk • contribs)
Delete We still have only 1 source. and it's on the founder of this tiny, fringe cult, not the cult itself. which does make it a delete. If anyone finds WP:SIGCOV, feel free too ping me to reconsider. But teh sourcing we have at this point does not cut the mustard.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per E.M.Gregory, the sourcing isn't substantial enough to establish that Odinia passes notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 04:12, 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 redirect to Dick Vitale#Video games. RL0919 (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Vitale's "Awesome Baby" College Hoops

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

I’m not used to editing articles for video games, but I am pretty sure this article fails WP:GNG. The article only has 3 references, with one of which being a link to a YouTuber (Scott the Woz) who made a video on the game. Speaking of which, the article is almost fully dedicated to Scott, with the only exception being the infobox and some of the lead. I don’t really see how this game is notable enough to have an article on it. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. this isn’t my area of expertise. Micro (Talk) 07:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Micro (Talk) 07:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GameRankings indicates no magazine reviews or similar. From more-modern reliable sources, the only one is a paragraph void of any significant details at GameInformer. I'm at work, so I can't guarantee that's it, but I think the paucity probably indicates this topic is not notable. --Izno (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Sega Genesis games, as it's on the list there, as an alternative to deletion - anyone looking for it can find some basic info like who made it and in what year on that list. This is pretty common with sports games of the era when various celebrity endorsements were everywhere to get games made - Sega actively pursued that in order to combat Nintendo's third-party support. It's worth noting as a person who has researched Sega extensively for this encyclopedia that of all those games with celebrity names, this one has never even been mentioned in any of the articles I've found. I did a WP:BEFORE check as well and came up with three magazines that had a print advertisement for it (but no article) and otherwise a couple of unreliable sources, which tells me this game is not particularly worthy of note. As wordy as the article title is, I still think it's a viable redirect to the list which has its entry. Red Phoenix ^talk 20:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mobygames lists three contemporary magazine reviews. I'm leaning toward Keep here. Phediuk (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Dick Vitale#In popular culture~~ Dick Vitale#Video games as a plausible redirect (with added info from this article) where it would have a better place to go than the Genesis list-of...though maybe that section itself should be renamed "Endorsements". Otherwise, it's indeed a game that didn't get much attention at the time, but with a more comical but affectionate current notability. Nate • (chatter) 00:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC) (updated with re-org of this section Nate • (chatter) 17:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC))[reply]
- While I prefer my suggested redirect more, I'm willing to call this my second choice. To Phediuk's thoughts on the reviews, it's nice if there are three vintage reviews, but if they are just the one paragraph on the list, that to me is not enough for significant coverage; it's common for gaming magazines to blast through games they don't want to go in depth with with a one-paragraph review. The newest two are from unreliable sources - one is an independent site, and consensus for WP:VG/S is that Sega-16 is only reliable for interviews and articles and reviews by Ken Horowitz—this one is not one of those reviews. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dick Vitales article and section about video games. The sources may exist, but unless/until anyone gets access to them, it’s pretty much impossible to write a properly sourced article with any sort of content in it. And with the sources being locked away into decades-old print magazines, there’s no indication that ever obtaining them is likely. Redirect for now, and spinout if/when someone writes an article according to those sources (And not that crap by some non-notable Youtuber.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks like it was reviewed in at least one magazine: [14] SportingFlyer T·C 08:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Existence does not equal notability; surely we need more than a mention or two, or a single review. Merge/redirect. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 8 August 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley G. Ellis

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

This subject is non-notable because they do not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in WP:BEFORE searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to a couple of name checks, very minor passing mentions and primary source quotations from sermons. Furthermore, the article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:GNG found non-trivial coverage in the Deseret News, The subject is notable as an elder in the Church (LDS) and there is non-trivial coverage of the subject in that realm. Lightburst (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lightburst: The source you provided is essentially a primary source, consisting mostly of quotations of a sermon the subject performed. The source provides virtually no biographical information about the subject, and is essentially a rehash of a sermon. Furthermore, multiple reliable sources that provide significant, independent (non-primary) coverage is required to establish notability, not just one source. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source has editorial oversight WP:RS. The subject of this article is a prominent figure in LDS. I admitted this subject is borderline which is why I said weak keep. Lightburst (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's also important to note that there is no presumed notability for LDS leaders or prominent figures. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The linked source is actually Church News, an official church publication that is included in Deseret News. You can tell because the byline says Church News. It is not an independent source. It is literally the church's coverage of itself. Bakazaka (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bakazaka Thank you, Yes I called this subject a weak keep. I have seen this source used for articles previously. I will keep searching. Lightburst (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Church News is an entirely primary source. Per the Church News article, the publication is "owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)". The source cannot be used to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per the discussion above, the sourcing appears to be primary, and nothing from WP:RS is present to suggest notability per WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with most of the rationale discussed above. One clarification: most/all of the sourcing is not independent of the subject, (and since no other sources exist, this fails WP:BASIC) but I disagree with the assertion that they are primary sources. The authors of, for example, the church news, would not be the subject of the article and therefore this would be a secondary source. However, since it is not an independent source, that is where it falls short. Rollidan (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find any independent coverage of this person (although it's possible that there might be some in Brazilian sources). RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:01, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. Camacho

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

There is no presumption of notability for US appeals court cases, nor is there an SNG for them to help guide our assessment. Therefore we must rely on GNG to determine whether this case is notable enough to require a standalone article.

I can't find any indication that this is an especially notable case. I've checked GScholar, GBooks, JSTOR, Newspapers.com, HeinOnline (via Google since it requires login to search), Questia, and basically found no substantial discussion of this case. The hits are muddied by two other cases, an 11th circuit case from 2001 also called United States v Camacho and a 6th circuit case from 2010 called United States v. Camacho-Arellano. Even adding +2004 to the search didn't turn up anything more substantial.

Given the lack of later references to the case and/or critical commentary about it, I don't think this meets our standard for encyclopedic notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage from reliable sources, so fails WP:GNG. Also checked WP:NEVENTS to make sure. William2001^(talk) 19:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is an appeals case, I suggest changing the name to reflect exactly that circuit and/or year. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coffeeluvr613, I've noticed you making a significant number of comments on AfD discussions within the last hour, and it seems like you may be going a bit fast and not properly reading the nominations. As I specifically called out in my nomination, appeals court cases are not inherently considered notable, so the simple fact of being an appeals case is not in itself a reason to keep. The name of the article has nothing to do about whether or not it ought to be kept as a topic. Can I gently suggest slowing down and familiarizing yourself with our policies and practices, perhaps making some edits to articles, before continuing to speed-vote on other nominations? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Premeditated Chaos This is a 250 word stub that checks out on open jurist and is written in neutral tone. There's no advertising, no promotion, no links to someone's website. Obviously it's of importance to someone. If it went on and on then I'd say that you're making an issue more notable than it is. But it's only 250 works, which is smaller than this discussion, it is 100% factual, and written in a neutral tone. So what is the point of removing it? It makes our encyclopedia better. And yes I move fast, if you drink some coffee you might move faster too. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that we are not an indiscriminate collection of all possible information. We rely on independent secondary sources for information, and if there are none (and I'm reasonably confident that there aren't), then the subject isn't notable and we have no business maintaining an article about it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I find three scholarly mentions of the case, one in Thomas K. Clancy, "2008 Fourth Amendment Symposium-The Fourth Amendment at the International Border", 78 Mississipi Law Journal (2008-2009), another in Yule Kim, Protecting the U.S. Perimeter: Border Searches Under the Fourth Amendment (2010), p. 16, and another in "Investigations and Police Practices: Warrantless Searches and Seizures", 40 Annual Review of Criminal Procedure 44 (2011). All of these mentions are fairly brief. The case has also been cited as a precedent in a dozen other court opinions. bd2412 T 03:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY if and only if all the sources found by BD2412 are added to the article. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know that I would say that the sources I found demonstrate notability. Each is a passing mention, and these three, collectively, are the only mentions that I could find for the case. Perhaps a better solution would be to merge this into a broader article on the application of the Fourth Amendment to border searches. bd2412 T 23:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - A merge to Border search exception might be suitable? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that the redirect recommendation by PMCspades above might be smart, but I will try and add some references to the page before we determine one way or the other. Looks notable enough for a mention elsewhere, even if on the brink for its own location. OhioShmyo (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added the references to the page, giving it at least enough oompf for placement on a related topic with a useful redirect, which I endorse maintaining. My failure to secure more coverage makes me unsure it passes WP:GNG, if the mentions are relatively short like mentioned above. OhioShmyo (talk) 01:20, 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 keep. As in, not delete. A merger can continue to be discussed on the talk page. Sandstein 09:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ballerina (programming language)

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

Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it fails GNG - listed references are written by people involved in the language creation, or sponsored to be written. Charmk (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This language is developed at (WSO2) and all references comes from them (Primary Resources). This reference is written by Sanjiva Weerawarana (WSO2), one of the Ballerina team (primary resource) and this reference is sponsored by WSO2, and this reference is written by Tyler Jewell (CEO of WSO2), and this reference is a trival mention that doesn't show significant coverage. Also this reference is written by Anjana Fernando (WSO2) Charmk (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting speedy keep per User:Stifle at User talk:Charmk#User warning: Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. To properly determine the value and notability of these programming languages, we need experts in the specific application fields as well as language design and history. However, the many nominations of the same type at present do not allow careful research in the given time, so it's better to keep a weak article than to accidently lose a notable one just because someone was WP:POINTY.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It does look like there is some mention of this in the tech press: https://www.zdnet.com/article/ballerina-a-language-of-integration-of-technology-and-the-arts/. I added a citation to the article itself. Bjornredtail (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Given that Ballerina is effectually a product of WSO2, the content could be shortened and merged into the main company article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.246.246.253 (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect Ballerina is a product of WSO2 and does not seem notable enough to have its own article. Taewangkorea (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are mentions from independent authors as well. I added two citations to the article itself (https://www.theserverside.com/blog/Coffee-Talk-Java-News-Stories-and-Opinions/Ballerina-language-promises-to-improve-app-integration and https://searchmicroservices.techtarget.com/tip/How-does-Ballerina-stack-up-as-a-cloud-native-programming-language) Samallama14 —Preceding undated comment added 09:06, 23 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. Consensus is the topic is likely notable per NHOCKEY #3 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Watkins

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Highest North American league played was the ECHL which doesn't grant notability unless preeminent honours are achieved, and the subject has none, so fails #3. EPIHL First All-Star does not qualify for #4 and never played in the top pool of the IIHF World Championship with Great Britain which fails #6. Tay87 (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He twice won the British Netminder of the Year, which is presented to the the top goalie regardless of the league. He won it while playing in the EPIHL over goalies who played in the top tier EIHL, twice. That appears to me to satisfy criterion #3 but I am not fully convinced. I will wait for others to chime in before I am persuaded one way or another.18abruce (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on 18abruce's description, I would interpret Watkins as meeting #3. It is clearly an odd situation, but if he was officially recognized as the best goalie in the country in competition with EIHL goalies, I'd have to give him credit for pre-eminent honors. Rlendog (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am comfortable with saying that he meets criterion 3 but I recognize that there is some ambiguity.18abruce (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Undecided~~ I agree with 18abruce that it would be reasonable to claim criterion 3 is met, but I have some concerns. First, does he look good to the writers because he's playing against lesser competition? Second, if he's better than all of the goalies in the higher league, why didn't any of those teams sign him? I'm inclined to think that the people who run hockey teams for a living are better judges of talent than local sportswriters. Just saying. Papaursa (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep Djsasso makes a good point below. I also think the fact that he won that award twice is important, otherwise I might be inclined to cite WP:BLP1E. Although the article doesn't cite sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, it seems like that award should have generated some coverage. That he meets WP:NHOCKEY shows that this is another example that most of our sports notability criteria don't set a very high bar for notability. Papaursa (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to remember is that WP:NHOCKEY isn't about skill, its about how likely the player is to have news coverage. So does winning that award make him likely enough to get enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, as I think it can be argued that he ought to meet WP:NHOCKEY #3, albeit barely. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:48, 25 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 redirect to South Shields#Rugby. Sandstein 14:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

South Shields RFC

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

Amateur rugby team that doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to South Shields#Rugby. Plenty of local and routine sources that mention the team, but I wasn't able to find anything that was sufficiently in-depth to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. However, it is a plausible search term, and we do have some information about the team at South Shields#Rugby, so a redirect seems a good alternative to deletion. Probably not worth a merge given that the article is entirely unsourced. Lowercaserho (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paweł Urban

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

This page should be deleted because of lack of its relevance to Wikipedia. (I am completing the nomination on behalf of the user editing from IP address 180.177.1.164. I have as yet no opinion myself.) Phil Bridger (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NACADEMIC. This person has invented a couple of techniques that have been confirmed by secondary sources. Seems notable to me. William2001^(talk) 19:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree he meets WP:NACADEMIC, but this is way too promotional. Take out all this "popularizing" and "numerous" promo crap and I'd change my vote. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- The article has been modified accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natriumchloratum (talk • contribs) 10:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Disagree that there is evidence here that he is a notable academic. There has been substantial editing of this page (and others) by Urban himself (or someone close to him; see User:Natriumchloratum) as promotional material. For example, there's little evidence that Urban's techniques "fizzy extraction", "Micro-arrays for mass spectrometry", and "Time-resolved mass spectrometry" are themselves notable, but they are used as evidence on Urban's page of his notability. All any of these entries do is showcase a bunch of citations to Urban's own papers (and those of his colleagues). This whole pack of articles just seems like a giant promotional circle jerk. Being on a handful of editorial boards doesn't make you notable, esp. for mega-journals like Scientific Reports, and I don't see any evidence of him receiving any major awards that would make him notable. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Five publications with over 100 citations each in Google Scholar is enough for WP:PROF#C1 for me. However I removed the routine and self-sourced section on his accomplishments; all academics publish and we can only include that sort of material if we have published secondary sources by other people that go into non-trivial detail about their significance. The keep is weak because what remains of the article is very minimal, and because the evidence of COI editing is problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 22 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal (programming language)

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

Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it fails GNG Charmk (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Again not notable to the length it goes on but would be a nice stub. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC) sock vote Charmk (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting speedy keep per User:Stifle at User talk:Charmk#User warning: Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. To properly determine the value and notability of these programming languages, we need experts in the specific application fields as well as language design and history. However, the many nominations of the same type at present do not allow careful research in the given time, so it's better to keep a weak article than to accidently lose a notable one just because someone was WP:POINTY.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I think it's clear this is a valid AFD. I'd say it's a pretty bad sign when a page about a computer language that has no historical importance doesn't bring any one to actually defend it. However, doing the Google News search, CBR Online (link blocked?) has an overview, SDTimes has several small pieces on Crystal updates, InfoWorld has a couple articles that go into some detail on Crystal as part of roundup of new languages. Pragmatic Bookshelf published Programming Crystal (ISBN 9781680502862) by Simon St. Laurent and Ivo Balbaert, neither of whom are developers. It's not far, but it seems over the line.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Crystal is niche, but not an esolang. It's been in active development for a number of years, accumulating 13558 stars on GitHub. There are currently 4605 libraries registered for it. It's significantly more popular than e.g. Elm. It's taught on Exercism.io. It seems to be tracked on the TIOBE index. Describing the authors of Programming Crystal as not being developers appears to be false. As a programmer, it's hard to imagine the criteria by which one could reasonably exclude Crystal from Wikipedia. Tenebrous (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia cares more about works published about the subject by third parties than usually any form of intrinsic notability. I wasn't referring to the authors of Programming Crystal as not being programmers, but rather as not being developers of Crystal, and thus independent of the subject. (In this set of DRs, there were specific mention of that, IIRC, that I was responding to.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - So what exactly is meant by, "To properly determine the value and notability of these programming languages, we need experts in the specific application fields as well as language design and history" if this is meant to exclude any form of intrinsic notability? Tenebrous (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know; maybe you should ask him?--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is weak regarding citations from reliable sources, but this can be improved. Sufficient notability should be provided by the sources already mentioned by User:Prosfilaes. Crystal was also featured in Linux Magazine ([15]). It is supported by Travis CI ([16]) and CircleCI ([17]) and it's currently prominently featured on the Snapcraft store ([18]) which shows reception in the industry. There are also notable articles by various authors, for example on blogs of Twilio ([19]), Codeship ([20], [21], [22]) and Bruce Perens ([23], [24], [25]). Disclosure: I'm a member of the Crystal developer team. --$traight-$hoota (talk) 11:34, 25 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 08:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cuneiform (programming language)

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

Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it fails GNG. I checked all of the references in the article, All of them by Jörgen Brandt (The language author) so they are primary resources. Also I can't find secondary resources for notability. Charmk (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's enough secondary sources to justify keeping this well written article, but it needs to be shortened. This is an encyclopedia, supposed to contain articles based on notability not the entire sum of knowledge humans have on the subject. 8 pages is silly for this minimally important language. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC) sock vote SL93 (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting speedy keep per User:Stifle at User talk:Charmk#User warning: Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. To properly determine the value and notability of these programming languages, we need experts in the specific application fields as well as language design and history. However, the many nominations of the same type at present do not allow careful research in the given time, so it's better to keep a weak article than to accidently lose a notable one just because someone was WP:POINTY.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with above comment. Sneakerheadguy (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 19 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. Canley (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glicko rating system

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

Does not appear to have notability, at least in terms of having a standalone article. Searches on Google just lead to its official website and some blog and forum posts discussing it. This could be salvaged by expanding the small section on the chess rating system that already exists for it with whatever actual sources can be found. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be enough coverage out there for this to meet WP:GNG. For instance: Over sixty hits for this on Google Scholar. Substantial discussion of its use in chess. Use of the system for making sport (tennis) predictions. Etc. Lowercaserho (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lowercaserho. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 03:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in addition to above, we have [26], [27], [28], lots of papers etc. Sufficient for WP:GNG. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. None of the "no delete" arguments have offered rationales grounded in policy or even guideline. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nyein Chan Ko Ko

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

No RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 06:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 06:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant vanity. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails, WP:NMG - Roundmaster (talk) 09:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have just gone for a WP:A7 speedy myself. Per above, not notable, vanity, etc. creffett (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 16:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that this should have been tagged for an A7 speedy. --Finngall ^talk 17:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete This is Really UnderGround Singer in myanmar. This is Real. So Don`t Delete. . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by DawSanlay (talk • contribs) 02:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC) — DawSanlay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I did fix the link to the article in question as it was pointing to a redirect and performed added the indent for the SPA's vote. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Put on article Dont Delete Reference Good — Preceding unsigned comment added by DawSanlay (talk • contribs) 03:24, 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. Seems like the consensus is that notability isn't demonstrated due to concerns about the reliability of many sources. Bearian's comments did not get much commentary, but it doesn't seem like they'd be sufficient by WP:NPROF standards. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Brown Emeagwali

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

I'm not really sure what to make of this one. The subject doesn't seem near meeting WP:NPROF, and the awards claimed in the text don't seem like they'd normally indicate notability. I don't have access to the first ref (Encyclopedia of World Scientists) but from the GBooks search it looks like she really is included in that. Is that enough to meet WP:GNG? I'm not sure. As a caution there is some weirdness about her spouse's tendency to extreme self-promotion. Not sure how that influences coverage (or how much we care), but figured I'd warn you before you start Googling the family... Thoughts? Ajpolino (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The other ref is this from blackpast.org, which seems to draw from an encyclopedia.com article, which is pretty intensely praise-y, but says it got some of its info from the subject herself... so I don't know... Ajpolino (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: she is included in the African Americans in Science: An Encyclopedia of People and Progress (Carey ref, to which I've now added link and isbn), and this ref I've just added shows her being held up as a role model for schoolchildren. PamD 16:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to have doubts. The article was created, complete with references and wikilinks, by an editor who contributed nothing else before or since. I can find no trace of a "Scientist of the Year" award from the "National Technical Society": the National Technical Honor Society honours students, not academics, but currently has no award of this name, and googling for "scientist of the year" national technical society doesn't show other people getting this honour. A lot of this article begins to look strange. I'd really like to see a reliable 1996 source for that "Scientist of the Year" award, if anyone can find one through Internet Archive or whatever. PamD 17:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the source which Carey provides as "References and further reading" is apparently a self-published biography (which I can't find in the Internet Archive): I got as far as this page which invites scientists to send their own biography. PamD 17:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- She is also included in Contemporary Black Biography (see [29]). Problems with formatting or tone can be fixed through editing (and discussed on the talk page). Thsmi002 (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thsmi002: Yes, I saw that as well. I'm not familiar with the source, but something isn't quite right with it. Unless she publishes under some other name (besides her married or maiden name) she just isn't a "renowned microbiologist". She's a long way from meeting the notability guideline for academics, so should we include her biography here per WP:GNG? It seems odd to say "she's a notable academic because sources call her a renowned microbiologist", even though we can see clearly she is not. On the other hand, the whole point of WP:GNG is that we follow the sources. So I'm not sure. That's why I brought this here. Thanks for your input. Ajpolino (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is weird. The entry in African Americans in Science: An Encylopedia of People and Progress similarly sells her as someone who has made huge contributions to microbiology and cancer biology, when I just can't find any evidence that's true. I'm not sure these sources are reliable. Sorry for all the text. Thoughts from anyone else, or do I just have a screw loose here? Ajpolino (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a confusing situation for sure but there is ultimately no evidence that the subject is anywhere near meeting WP:NPROF. Not by publications and not by awards. A keep on GNG grounds would put us in an impossible situation. Haukur (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - her career trajectory, if anything, makes her unusual - she started at UWyo, and rose to much more prestegious universities. Bearian (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Something does not smell right here. There are substantial claims of scientific achievement, but the sourcing goes to a dead link. Cannot confirm claims through a quick search of the primary scientific literature. Agricola44 (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Found the paper in GS on her main claimed discovery in S Parvulus listed under an earlier name (that paper is also in the WP source list in this article). This paper from 1980 has 21 citations. It appears the notability of her work is overstated and suggests that the write-ups in works like African Americans in Science are unreliable. Agricola44 (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A quick look does indeed strongly suggest that these specialty encyclopedia articles are unreliable, eg. this one from "Black Past": In 1986 she and her collaborators proved that S.parvulus, a strain of Streptomycetes, synthesized isozymes of kynurenine formamidase. This discovery helped to change the field of microbiology... Besides getting the year wrong, ~20 citations on a paper from the 1980s is far short of changing the field of microbiology. It appears there is a large literature overstating the contributions of this individual. Agricola44 (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how any of the article content suggests that the subject meets the notability guidelines at WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. For example, all four scientific publications listed in the Selected Works section are from years when Emeagwali's role is described as either "research associate" or "assistant research scientist". In those roles, a scientist is essentially contributing to their supervisor/advisor's research program. Accomplishments described in the article are consistent with those of a staff scientist rather than of someone in a scientific leadership role. Deli nk (talk) 20:39, 22 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 08:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrews & Arnold

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

Lacks major RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 06:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A small UK ISP which never-the-less attracts significant independent third-party attention, thus making it notable. For example, multiple sources (including the BBC) covered their experiments to provide a broadband connection over a piece of wet string, The Register covered their honeypot trap of nuisance marketeers, the UK IPv6 Council acknowledge they were the first UK ISP to offer IPv6 and the UK Government consults with them on parliamentary business. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dorsetonian, agree with but really only these sources are not enough to make A small UK ISP notable. Meeanaya (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should elaborate! I provided clear evidence that WP:NCORP is met, you agree, and yet you still say the company is not notable. Dorsetonian (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They are famous in the field, have been mentioned in the house of commons, and have attracted significant press interest for their protection of e-rights, as alluded to above by the previous poster. Landak (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Famous in geeky circles perhaps and without a huge trove of material that would qualify as GNG. However, they are well-known within those industry circles and generate coverage in the relevant trade press. Shritwod (talk) 18:41, 25 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. Sandstein 08:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chennai Swaggers

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

Non-notable reality television cricket team. Fails WP:CRIN inclusion guidelines. StickyWicket (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - unfortunately WP:CRIN isn't very helpful on teams and is poorly written. This type of team would not be automatically included, as I read it, but would also not be automatically excluded. WP:NSPORTS makes no ruling one way or the other, so we come down to WP:ORG. There is clearly some coverage of the team in the Indian press. That coverage is more than just routine mentions in lists, but I'm not convinced that I see enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:ORG. Although it's close. I would suggest a total rewriting of WP:CRIN - the teams section at least - would help to add clarity to this sort of situation. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To apply WP:CRIN to a reality TV cricket team is not judicious. Agree with @Blue Square Thing: that the correct criteria for deletion that applies is WP:ORG not WP:CRIN. The subject matter meets - even if marginally - all WP:ORGCRITE criteria. Correct remedy is to attach tags to improve, not delete.Deccantrap (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete - not enough coverage for the notability. Störm (talk) 07:14, 19 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Borders of Guatemala

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

not a good idea--insuffiecnt information for an article and not even worth a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is extensive precendent for this type of article (see Borders of India, Borders of Russia, Borders of Israel, Borders of Spain, etc.) Can this article be fleshed out rather than deleted? Paisarepa (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly a notable subject given Guatemala's well-documented and long-running territorial disputes, as well as other border issues. The most prominent one of these is of course the Belize dispute, and if this were the only one then I would favour simply redirecting to the article that covers this. However, Guatemala also had a long-running territorial dispute with Mexico and had a brief conflict with Mexico in the 1950s related to border crossings. There was also a dispute with Honduras. In fact the only border which I was not able to find anything notable about was the one with El Salvador, which for some reason has an article. There is also the ongoing crisis of people crossing the Guatemala-Mexico border to reach the US, which is obviously a notable subject. Obviously some (not all) of these subjects are covered on other pages, but there's enough here for a stand-alone article on Guatemala's border in general. PS - WP:WAX is a bad argument to keep and I don't endorse keeping simply because other countries have similar articles. FOARP (talk) 07:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There - added all those references and a few more to the article, which, frankly, the nom should have done. I also think that WP:GEOLAND might well apply to this article (the borders are after all legally-recognised localities). FOARP (talk) 09:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now, as FOARP has expanded it to make a useful page. – Fayenatic London 09:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FOARP - multiple border disputes mean that there's no redirect target, and the expansion makes this a decent article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject with further scope for expansion.Dimadick (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A notable topic, per a source review. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dušan Stojanović

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

Promotional article with a lack of reliable sources to satisfy WP:NBIO. Searches turn up non-independent sources such as speaker profiles and interviews. There is a duplicate article at Dušan Stoiljković (investor) which I am bundling in this nomination. – Teratix ₵ 04:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 04:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 04:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, the sources in the article are all either interviews, promotional, or irrelevant - and a search doesn't turn up anything better. Definitely doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. MDDevice^talk 09:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After another look I found an article from The Economic Times [30] which is OK, but it's the only half-decent source out there. – Teratix ₵ 10:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be a run-of-the-mill businessperson. While the subject has accrued some coverage in reliable sources, most of this coverage is tangential or veering towards WP:PRIMARY. In addition, the subject does not inherit undue notability from more notable companies/entities they are affiliated with; sources would be needed that explicitly imply the subject is notable when separated from their investments. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:25, 23 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. Consensus seems pretty clear now. Thank you Uncle G. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roberts Landing, California (neé Robert, California)

I have found no evidence that this settlement has ever existed, besides GNIS. We already deleted Brookshire, a similar former settlement within Alameda County. Even if this place did exist, it should not have an article if there is nothing to say about it. -Naddruf (talk) 04:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, assuming nobody else can find a source stating it existed. Highway 89 (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC) Striking since sources have been found. Highway 89 (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There doesn't appear to be anything novel about this telephone-book-like listing of a non-existent place, except maybe as a placeholder name for when a real Robert, California will be built. StonyBrook (talk) 11:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It did exist, and this was one of its names, per ISBN 9780520266193 page 319. It was a place more usually called Robert's Landing, outside of San Leandro in the 19th century. It is why West San Lorenzo Station was originally named Roberts Station, and you can find this place under the name Robert's Landing in plenty of history books. Uncle G (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- All this begs the question why we have an article about Robert, when the historical place was named other things (Robert's Landing or Roberts). The only one of those that google maps recognizes is Robert's Landing, and it goes to San Leandro. Someone would need to dig up those history books and prove from them that Robert (x3) was an important place. Barring that, this article should be deleted and Robert's Landing, California be created as a redirect to San Leandro, along with some mention of it there, which it currently does not have. StonyBrook (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because the article creator here took it from the U.S. GNIS, and the GNIS data were submitted in 1996 by someone who could not read a map. The old GNIS entry (U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Robert) cites its source as a 1934 California DOT highways map. I looked at the 1935 Alameda county highways map, which one can find on the WWW, myself. The dot labelled ″Robert″ is in fact the railway station, the railway line going directly through it, with the old settlement of Robert's Landing labelled separately just next to it. Its GNIS entry is U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Robert's Landing. Your way of doing things is quite byzantine and unnecessarily complex. We can just rename and edit the article. No administrator involvement required. Well, apart from the administrator who is showing how to fix this without involving administrator tools in any way, that is. Uncle G (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing my vote. The nom of this article has led its renaming and improvement with sources to the point that it is unrecognizable from its former state. StonyBrook (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Brookshire is in fact on the same 1935 California DOT Alameda county highways map. It really did exist after all, it turns out. Uncle G (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. If there is enough information to write an article about it, it could have an article. However I don't think there should be a page if it only lists the coordinates and elevation, without any local history. That brings up the question of whether we should have articles for all the former townships of Alameda County. Naddruf (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The general presumption that populated places are notable is a shortcut for the true argument that each individual place is notable because it is covered in depth in multiple independent quality sources; on the grounds that populated places generally are. User:Uncle G/On notability#Notability is not a blanket. My personal approach to such a question would be to look to see whether there is a history book or other good source that documents in depth all of the former townships of Alameda County, which could be used as a source for such articles. To pick an example: Looking at just the first paragraph of its 15-page entry on Murray Township, Alameda County, California, I would say that The centennial year book of Alameda County, California at the Internet Archive supports at least a good stub on such a place. Uncle G (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw (comment by nominator): now that the name has been changed, it is clear that this settlement really did exist and it house a useful article. Naddruf (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naddruf The nomination can be withdrawn only if users with delete also change their mind! --Mhhossein ^talk 18:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: Looking at the users who commented delete, they both said that it should only be deleted if no info can be found about the article. This isn't true anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naddruf (talk • contribs) 00:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – @Mhhossein: Actually, a nominator can withdraw at any time, but when outstanding delete !votes are present, the discussion cannot be closed with a speedy keep result. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The 1910 explosion blew out the windows in the San Leandro School, 2 miles away. That alone made the location notable: it was written about. But I think the title is over-apostrophized. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aymatth2: If you would like to add that into the article, go ahead. It's not there yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naddruf (talk • contribs) 00:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I moved it to Roberts Landing, California, sans apostrophe. It is not the landing of Robert, or the landing of Roberts, but the landing named after Roberts. I will add some stuff on the Trojan years. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: Hey look! All the delete comments are gone! Naddruf (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Business Casual (vocal group)

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

Well I went to their website and they sound pretty awesome but I don't think they quite meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Now I may have missed something because "business casual" is a common phrase but I was unable to find in-depth coverage in reliable third-party sources. Pichpich (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 04:45, 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 redirect to Live and Let Die (film). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Lane (actor)

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

Non-notable actor. I removed the references to imdb and Fandom, but I can't find any reliable sources to replace them. Previous attempts to draftify and prod this were contested by the author. – bradv🍁 02:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Has not received significant coverage (I couldn't find anything other than lists of his appearances) and has not been nominated for or won any notable awards. Even the one source in the article (#90 on list) describes his (arguably most notable) role in Live and Let Die as "Not much to see here. Moving on." SamCordes^Talk 04:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Lane's Live and Let Die character Adam is a significant presence as he participates in three attempts to assassinate Bond (high-flying airplane; crocodilians; boat chase). Adam instigates the boat chase, and as a participant he remains in pursuit well after everyone else has wrecked or been left behind, forcing Bond to devise a spectacular death for him. Tony (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Angilbas: Which article do you propose redirecting to? The character Adam may be notable in Live and Let Die, however the character itself is not notable and fails WP:GNG, with James Bond-related wikis the only content I could find on him (here). SamCordes^Talk 03:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Live and Let Die (film) as his most known role and a significant minor role, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, redirect. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 06:20, 23 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. Per the arguments provided that the sources are inadequate, although one might try to write an article on the fire. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Living Waters Christian Assembly

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

I found no significant coverage for this church. SL93 (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article is completely unsourced aside from the church's website. The 2017 fire does have some news coverage but I don't think the church itself is notable enough for an article. Highway 89 (talk) 03:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant coverage, here, here, here, here, here, and here.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The first reference is about someone named Colleen Noble regaining her faith and the church is only mentioned twice very briefly. The second reference is about someone named Jutras being converted with the church only mentioned one time very briefly. The third reference is about Ottawa families spending time together on Easter with one brief mention of the church. The fourth reference is about the fire that burned down the church which is irrelevant to notability per WP:NOTNEWS. The fifth reference is about that same fire. The last reference is again about the fire. SL93 (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(with some regret) Delete -- This has the feel of a fund raising webpage. The church's most notable news is that it was burnt down, presumably accidentally (I have not investigated), but that is itself NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:55, 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 draftify (already draftified). Already moved to draftspace by it's author. Closing as it is a orphaned AfD. (non-admin closure) Masum Reza^📞 04:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Async++

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

Since PROD didn't work, taking this to AfD. The page is just someone making a Wikipedia page for their GitHub project. Not at all notable, fails WP:GNG, and considering that it was released about a month ago it's WP:TOSOON. creffett (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - a new Github project with no independent coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find independent sources for this library, so it fails WP:GNG. Without any independent sources, there is no verifiable material to preserve per WP:ATD. Hence delete. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 09:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails GNG. Borderline A7. Masum Reza^📞 15:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been moved to Draft space and so I have removed the AFD tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 22 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. Discussion's been open for a month and both sides are well-argued. Stifle (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Magnet

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP and significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/Shrav81 with no other contributions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article appears to meet all primary criteria for notability. List of references indicate that the subject matter has received significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources. There may be some sources that may not meet WP:RS but I spotted at least 4 sources that do, so the correct remedy would be to attach tags to fix references, not deletion. Further, the assertion that it has received contributions from a single editor is not a criteria for deletion.Deccantrap (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I'd love to see a lot of the promotional language cleaned up Sneakerheadguy (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are a lot of sources, several of which are reliable and independent so notability is there. There is definitely quite a bit of promotional/POV content but that is fixable (and as stated above, this isn't a criteria for deletion anyway). Highway 89 (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV. Non-trivial like: Economic Times and Business Today. Nominator did not do a thorough WP:BEFORE. Passing mention in anotherBusiness Today and Telegraph India. Trout Lightburst (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the 45 references listed in the article and above, not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. I wonder if the Keep !voters have read WP:NCORP (especially WP:CORPDEPTH and [WP:ORGIND]]) because I do not understand how they reached the conclusion that references exist that meet the criteria as described in WP:NCORP. There's also a lack of detail provided by those who !voted to Keep and some make no references to policies or guidelines (which, of course, they should). Of those Keep !votes that provide reasons and or refer to policies/guidelines, most are quoted and interpreted incorrectly and/or incompletely. For example, some say that there exists coverage which is "significant" - my opinion is that while some of the publishers may be large/successful/significant, this does not mean that the article is significant. In fact, upon close examination, none of the content is significant since most of it is churnalism and/or derived from primary sources. There are various incomplete interpretations of guidelines - for example, a topic is not automatically notable if it receives coverage in "multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources" because it is *also* a *requirement* that the *content* must be independent (and not a series of "interviews" or articles based on interviews/quotations/announcements) as per WP:ORGIND. After an examination of the references, not a single reference includes original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Finally, the references listed by Lightburst above are classic examples of references that fail the criteria for establishing notability. The Economic Times references is classic churnalism complete with photo, history of founders, description of problem, funding history and positive future-looking statement - fails WP:ORGIND and it is clearly not independent content. The Business Today reference is entirely based on information and quotations from the founders and one of the angel investors - again fails WP:ORGIND. Due to the lack of references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, this topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment: the sources offered above are likewise passing mentions and/or WP:SPIP; this is not significant coverage. For example, "Different Strokes: Jade's creative crowdsourcing model" is based on the interview with the co-founders. This is not independent, significant coverage and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:25, 11 August 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kapil Jangir

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

Non-notable musician. I cannot find any additional reliable sources about this person, and of the 4 sources in the article, 3 don't even mention him. – bradv🍁 00:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – bradv🍁 00:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – bradv🍁 00:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's possible I'm missing something in the Hindi language source because I can't even run it through a machine translator, but given the sparseness of coverage elsewhere I'm doubtful. I'll happily strike this vote if someone can find reliable coverage in Hindi (or any other language). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG, but would echo Rosguill's note about the difficulty in searching for Indian-language sources - if better sourcing can be found I'd happily change my view. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:05, 19 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) Rollidan (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Encef

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

The only mention of Encef is on the disambiguation page. Leschnei (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be a valid disambiguation page. Also used as a trade name for Cefixime [31] [32]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after adding these trade names, sourced, to the respective articles - both seem to include several unsourced tradenames in infobox, not sure what the best way would be to add this content with a source. Then strip the refs out of the dab page. PamD 15:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: perfectly valid dab page disambiguating between two articles, with more to be added. – Uanfala (talk) 23:36, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarashi

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

TL;DR version: Nothing in the current article appears to be correct.

Details: Sarashi (晒 or 晒し) in Japanese refers to either "bleaching cloth (by exposing it to the sun)" or "exposure (as in doxing)". I cannot find any Japanese-language resources that define sarashi as any kind of figure-altering cloth. Of the two references listed in the article, the first one (the Sarashi page on The International Shakuhachi Society's website, https://www.komuso.com/pieces/pieces.pl?piece=2121) also defines sarashi as "bleaching cloth", and makes no mention of any garment. The second one (a doula-related website, http://www.crowningmomentsdoula.com/History-of-Belly-Binding.php) appears to be a dead link. For those who can read Japanese, see the JA Wikipedia articles at w:ja:晒 about cloth bleaching, and at w:ja:晒し about sensitive data exposure. The former JA Wikipedia article mentions various garments as possible uses of the resulting bleached cloth, but never defines sarashi as meaning those garments themselves. An earlier version of the EN Wikipedia sarashi page referenced https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Sarashi, but I have no idea where that site sourced its information. The picture on that page suggests that the TV Tropes authors were confusing the word sarashi with haramaki, which actually does refer to cloth wrapped around the belly, and might be made from sarashi-bleached material.

I'm reasonably fluent in Japanese and an admin at the EN Wiktionary, focusing on creating and editing entries for Japanese terms. Please ping me with any questions about this AFD. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't see any reason to keep this: it is not an encyclopedic topic. As Eirikr hints, it might be the basis for a dictionary entry, once all the misunderstandings are cleared up. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The dead link is archived - [33]. There are a number of sources that mention sarashi binding - [34][35], and as a bleached cloth [36] or sarashi momen - [37]. I'm wondering if rewriting the article to clearly explain what it is, and what it might be used for might be the better option? Hzh (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find it somewhat suspicious that I cannot find any Japanese references that mention any such "sarashi". I can find mention of bleaching, doxing, and various forms of public punishment that involve putting the guilty party on public display with a notice of their crimes (vaguely similar to how stocks were used in European cultures), as well as more gruesome punishments such as beheading and public exposure of the head. I can find mention of cloth that has been processed using the sarashi method of bleaching. I cannot (yet?) find any Japanese-language source that describes sarashi as specifically a cloth used for belly-binding (or indeed for any other specific garment).

Looking at the links posted by Hzh, I note that:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160302003147/http://www.crowningmomentsdoula.com/History-of-Belly-Binding.php - the doula-related site is all in English, with no sources given;
https://sarashi-binding.net/2016/03/26/how-to-wrap-a-sarashi/ - poor English and a bit confusing, but looking at the parent site http://sarashi.net/ mentioned at the bottom of that page, the content authors are sellers of sarashi cloth, and the "how to wrap" page is about one specific way of using sarashi cloth, rather than about sarashi itself.
https://books.google.com/books?id=MSc4Afi9XWsC&pg=PA90&dq=sarashi+binding - English-only text, and while there is a bibliography with this one, there's no clear source for where the author got the notion that sarashi means "binding".
https://books.google.com/books?id=4h0TAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA375&dq=sarashi - a mention of sarashi cloth, consistent with Japanese sources I've found, and without anything specifically about belly-binding.
https://books.google.com/books?id=WHfTCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA166#v=onepage&q&f=false - sarashi momen is momen ("cotton") bleached using the sarashi process. Again, nothing about belly-binding.

I do note that the Japanese Wikipedia article on haramaki ("belly wrapping") at w:ja:腹巻き specifically mentions 晒木綿 (sarashi momen) as one kind of material used for these, but it does not say that sarashi or sarashi momen means "belly-binding" or "belly wrapping".

If someone wants to completely rewrite our [[Sarashi]] article, I'm fine with its continued existence. But in its present state, it's effectively lying to our readers. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's just poorly written, there is no need to throw accusation of lying. It's also just two sentences long, should be easy to rewrite if anyone wants to do it, and it seems that a few minutes adjusting the text by someone who knows the subject should fix any error. I don't have strong feeling about keeping or deleting it, but perhaps a better rationale for deletion should be given rather than any error in it - perhaps WP:NOTDICT, but it seems that it could be expanded, for example its use in rituals [38], or to wrap around parts of the body - [39][40], etc. Hzh (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there is no basis whatsoever for the implied claim that sarashi is a Japanese term for a binding cloth, rather than for the type of cloth. There is no accusation of lying (saying something you know is false); the suggestion is that the handful of entirely English sources are muddled about what sarashi means. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There you are, I've just done just a little work to fix the wordings, instead of spending time arguing about it. I'm sure you can do better than me fixing the content. Hzh (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither reference attached to the first sentence supports the (surely false) claim that "a sarashi" is a "bleached cloth". Hepburn's dictionary says that sarashi refers to bleaching (as we knew), and the shakuhachi article refers to a piece titled sarashi, meaning "(the act of) bleaching cloth", and not to a particular type of cloth which has been bleached. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting tiresome. The dictionary gives two definitions, one of them "white, or bleached muslin". Can you do something more useful than pointless carping? Hzh (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the above conversation between editors appears to be about the definition of this term, is WP a dictionary? Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator thought that the definition is wrong, hence concentrated on the definition. This is probably the wrong thing to do, since an error in definition can easily be fixed, and is not that relevant to whether the topic warrants an article or not. Hzh (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think I have fixed the issue the nominator was complaining about. There are also other sources on its production and uses, and other related things, for example there is a sarashi dance based on the cloth - [41][42]. It is therefore possible to expand it into a decent article on the subject. Hzh (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that after the nomination for deletion, the article was significantly copy edited by User:Hzh, which included the addition of several sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three additional links provided further above by Hzh, the first (https://books.google.com/books?id=iDqKsWFEf-4C&pg=PA124#v=onepage&q&f=false) appears to be correct, using the term sarashi to mean "bleached white cloth". This conforms to all the Japanese materials I have seen. However, Hzh seems to think that this implies some ritual usage specific to this material; I don't think this is enough to warrant notability; perhaps a note on the page for any such ritual, but not a page of its own. The second (https://books.google.com/books?id=RMEMAAAAYAAJ&q=sarashi+belly&dq=sarashi+belly&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8mKzSzcvjAhUNYcAKHUeYCaIQ6AEIQTAE) is mistaken: "a strip of cotton, called iwata-obi or sarashi, is tied around the expectant mother's waist, just below her extended belly." Here, an iwata obi is definitely a thing, and it even has a JA WP article at [[ja:帯祝い]]. However, it is not sarashi, nor is sarashi an iwata obi, although an iwata obi could well be made of sarashi material. Notably, the JA WP article lists several synonyms, but it doesn't include the word sarashi anywhere. The third link (https://books.google.com/books?id=zH1oDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT173&dq=sarashi#v=onepage&q=sarashi&f=false) also appears to be confused: "He carried an unsheathed dagger wrapped in a towel, thrust in his sarashi (a light muslin cloth, wrapped in many layers around the belly for warmth)." From all that I've read so far in Japanese, the described use is a haramaki made of sarashi material, not a valid definition of sarashi itself.
...in its present state, [the article] is effectively lying to our readers. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi |^{Tala við mig} 16:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's just poorly written, there is no need to throw accusation of lying... Hzh (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My use of the term "lying" is from the sense of "knowingly telling a falsehood". The [[Sarashi]] article is known to be false. In its current state, we are effectively lying to our readers, by knowingly (at this point, at least) telling a falsehood. We could rewrite the page at [[Sarashi]] to properly conform to known Japanese usage, describing the material, what it's made of, and how it's produced. However, none of the English-language links so far posted to this thread provide the information needed to do that. I'm also uncertain if it's notable enough, although I do see a page for [[Muslin]].

The page after editing by Hzh seems ... unuseful. I recognize that that's a subjective judgement; however, the page barely provides more information than a dictionary entry would. And if WP:NOTDICT holds, then [[Sarashi]] appears to fall below that threshold, and we should delete. Some of the sources also don't say what the article seems to imply that they say; I'll clear those out in a moment. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you misread a lot of what is written there. The thing you complained about is actually about its use, not what it is defined as (e.g. the cloth used for binding either a woman's or man's belly is sarashi). You also seem to misunderstand what sources may be used - while English sources are preferred, there is nothing wrong with using Japanese language sources if you want to do per WP:NOENG, therefore arguing about English sources is pointless. You can just replace them with Japanese ones if you want to. If there are valid sources in Japanese in Japanese Wiki, then they can also be used here. It's really odd to keep referring to the Japanese Wiki, for one you should not use another Wiki article as a reference (Wiki article are not valid sources whichever language they may be), for another, if the sources used in the Japanese Wiki are valid for that article, then they can be used here. Otherwise you can also argue for the deletion of the Japanese Wiki article. I have no idea why you waste so much time writing here in the AfD when you can just spend a few minutes in the article to fix any issues given that it is just a few sentences long. Hzh (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why are you bolding delete, it makes you look like you are voting delete again after nominating it for AfD. Hzh (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I very much agree with Eiríkr here. I have just edited the article slightly, but don't know how to get the bolded title to be italic, as it should be, since it is not an English word. Fairly clearly some ancient (unreliable) sources in English have confused the Japanese term for the type of cloth with its purpose. So once again: what is the topic of this (supposedly encyclopedic) article? Your comments about Japanese sources seem odd: the WP:ja article totally supports what Eiríkr is saying, and we should generally assume that writing by speakers of Japanese is a more reliable guide to usage in the Japanese language than isolated (mis-)quotes from non-speakers of Japanese. Imaginatorium (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is the policy of Wikipedia per WP:CIRCULAR, you cannot use Wikipedia as source. You can however use content that is sourced. Since that article is referenced with Japanese language sources, you can therefore simply translate the article and use it here with the sources. All these arguments are pointless since the issues are so easily fixable, and we are only having this discussion because the nominator isn't aware of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including on deletion). If the nominator thinks that an article on sarashi shouldn't exist in English Wikipedia because of the sources, then it would also apply to the Japanese one and he can nominate that one for deletion as well. Hzh (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to Hzh.

"You also seem to misunderstand what sources may be used - while English sources are preferred, there is nothing wrong with using Japanese language sources if you want to do per WP:NOENG, therefore arguing about English sources is pointless." -- Hzh (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At no point have I added sources to the [[Sarashi]] article. At no point have I advocated adding sources to the [[Sarashi]] article. Instead, I have pointed out where existing references in the [[Sarashi]] article have been incorrect. If an English source is wrong, I will argue against its inclusion and/or remove it from the article.

"It's really odd to keep referring to the Japanese Wiki, for one you should not use another Wiki article as a reference..." -- Hzh (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I use the Japanese WP as a point of reference, but nowhere do I advocate for using the Japanese WP as a reference proper, that is, as a source for the [[Sarashi]] article here.

Sarashi is an artifact of the Japanese language and culture. Understanding what sarashi is and its significance requires that one evaluate what Japanese writers have to say about it. When the Japanese WP article at [[ja:晒]] disagrees with the English WP article at [[Sarashi]], simple logic suggests that we should give more credence to the article written (presumably) by authors who belong to the culture and language from which sarashi originated, and then do further research.

"...if the sources used in the Japanese Wiki are valid for that article, then they can be used here. Otherwise you can also argue for the deletion of the Japanese Wiki article. I have no idea why you waste so much time writing here in the AfD when you can just spend a few minutes in the article to fix any issues given that it is just a few sentences long." -- Hzh (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that hasn't been addressed fully is whether the topic of [[Sarashi]] is noteworthy enough for an English-language audience to even merit the existence of the [[Sarashi]] article. I explicitly called that into question above: "I'm also uncertain if it's notable enough, although I do see a page for [[Muslin]]." ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi |^{Tala við mig} 16:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding so far has been that the existence of an article on one language's Wikipedia does not necessarily mean that the topic is similarly notable enough for readers of other languages. Each Wikipedia is a separate community, with separate ideas about what merits notability. By my reading of the English Wikipedia guidelines at [[Wikipedia:Notability]], the topic of sarashi is not sufficiently notable to merit a separate page. I am uninterested in expending the effort to build out an article on a topic that I judge to be non-notable. At least one other editor here, Imaginatorium, seems to share my view; in your posts here to date, you haven't stated anything explicit about your views on the notability of sarashi for English-language readers.

"...we are only having this discussion because the nominator isn't aware of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including on deletion)." -- Hzh (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. My initial nomination was prompted by the patent and complete incorrectness of the entire article at that time, and by my view that it is better to have no article at all than to have a completely incorrect article. At present, I continue to advocate for the article's deletion, as I do not think that the topic of sarashi is sufficiently notable for English-language readers to merit an independent article.

"If the nominator thinks that an article on sarashi shouldn't exist in English Wikipedia because of the sources, then it would also apply to the Japanese one and he can nominate that one for deletion as well." -- Hzh (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also incorrect. For one, bad English-language sources in the English-language article have no bearing on the quality of Japanese-language sources used for the Japanese-language article. For two, I do not think that the topic of sarashi is sufficiently notable to merit an independent article. For three, as I stated above, the different Wikipedias have different criteria for what constitutes a notable topic for an article.

In summation, 1) is the topic of sarashi sufficiently notable to merit its own article? I do not currently think so. I am open to being convinced otherwise.

Also, 2) if we are to keep and maintain the [[Sarashi]] article, it should at least be correct. This is where I am concerned about the sources. Given time, I can find you sources published with Japanese government ministry approval that state quite clearly that Americans all have big family gatherings and turkey dinners on Halloween. Anyone with much experience of American culture can ascertain that this is incorrect. Simply finding a source isn't good enough: sources must also be vetted. Several of those listed above have not been correct.

Iff a convincing argument can be made that the topic of sarashi is sufficiently notable for English-language readers to merit an independent article, then I will happily withdraw my nomination of the [[Sarashi]] article for deletion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heavens, if I had known this is going to get so tedious, I would never have participated here. You claim to know what the deletion policy is, but only mentioned actual guidelines after almost two weeks. Half of the problems lie with you misreading what's written, then rely on your misreading to claim that what's written is wrong. The only person who supported you could not even read the dictionary source provided properly. If there are sources in Japanese that discuss the subject in any depth, then it is notable in English Wikipedia. Notability of any English language article is not limited by the sources available in English. You apparently have found sources in Japanese, unless those are trivial sources, if you are questioning its notability knowing that there are significant Japanese sources, it would suggest that you don't know what the policies and guidelines are. Hint: read WP:SIGCOV, if sources in Japanese don't cover the topic more than trivial mentions, then argue for deletion based on that. Hzh (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hzh, please maintain civility. Your responses have grown increasingly belittling and accusatory.

I have read WP:SIGCOV: as I stated above, I have read Wikipedia:Notability, of which Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline is a part. Apparently my understanding differs from yours. Particularly (emphasis mine):

"A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article... If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article."

For instance, I believe that sarashi might merit a mention and brief description in the [[Muslin]] article.

By way of relevant example, the Japanese-language editing community decided that the topic of lower bigrade conjugation verbs deserved a whole page, at [[ja:下二段活用]]. The English-language editing community decided differently, and instead we only have a mention of this conjugation pattern in the [[Classical_Japanese_language#Verbs_(動詞_Dōshi)]] section. Clearly, different-language Wikipedias make different decisions about notability.

Along similar lines, I am not convinced that the topic of sarashi is sufficiently notable to English-language readers to warrant its own article. This is wholly independent of sourcing and the language of any such sources. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You only have to click on the Japanese version of WP:N to see that the same criteria on significant coverage and others also apply. If you want to argue about the notability of the English article, then you are also arguing for the deletion of the Japanese version. However, I have no idea what your argument for deletion is based on (you need to specify what exactly which bit of WP:N the article supposedly failed), which is really strange after you have written so much. Even odder that you are in effect disputing what WP:SIGCOV says on the link between sourcing and notability. You really need to show that you understand which policy and guideline that this article fails. And no, the fact that a topic only appears as a subtopic in an article does not mean that that subtopic does not warrant its own page. Splitting of a subtopic occurs too often to be even worth discussing (someone may very well create an article on that subtopic tomorrow), and entirely irrelevant here. What you are saying about putting it into the muslin article is also an argument for merging (see WP:MERGE), not deletion. I recommend reading WP:Deletion policy on reasons for deletion and the various alternatives available for an article. Hzh (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Hzh: Among your posting about you said "The only person who supported you could not even read the dictionary source provided properly." I think this means me, so kindly remind me what you refer to as "the [sic] dictionary source", and explain what I am not able to read. You have never explained: what is supposed to be the topic of this supposed encyclopedia article. A topic cannot just be "This Japanese word", it has to be a noun phrase describing the subject. Currently the closest seems to be "Various misconceptions in old books in English of the meaning of the Japanese word 晒し"; at least it could be moved to sarashi momen (晒し木綿), so that the topic could be described by the English noun phrase "Bleached cotton in the context of Japanese tradition". Imaginatorium (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the sources again after you complained about sarashi meaning only bleaching and not bleached cloth in the dictionary? The dictionary gave 2 definitions, you apparently stopped reading after the first one. If you don't want to check, perhaps you can just ask Eiríkr Útlendi, who said that sarashi meaning "bleached white cloth" conforms to all the Japanese materials he had seen. I have spent a ridiculous amount of time replying when those I replied to can just do a simple check themselves, and to a nominator who so far has not produced a valid reason for deletion (citing WP:N while apparently disputing what it says on sourcing and notability is absurd, he should really understand that notability is not independent of sourcing). As far as I can see, there are enough sources to extend the article beyond a simple definition, therefore WP:NOTDICT would not apply, and so justifiable in keeping. I think I should really bow out of this discussion before I get really rude over an article I don't care that much about. Hzh (talk) 10:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I looked in 大辞林, which is a pretty good dictionary. 晒し can be used as short for 晒し木綿, which is "bleached cotton". But you did not answer my question: what is the topic of this article? If it is "Bleached cotton", then that would be a better title. Or is it "Semi-misunderstandings and confusion around the Japanese word sarashi in old books in English"? Is that really a notable topic? Imaginatorium (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Electrolab

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

I can't find any use except Electrolab S.A. and Bell Electrolabs (which doesn't really need disambiguating). Leschnei (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there’s not even one notable subject named Electrolabs, much less multiple subjects and the need to disambiguate. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 14:38, 19 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. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Quilala

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Not sure if this is worth a redirect to Chris Quilala, given that there doesn't seem to be much in the way of sourcing. Adam9007 (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the one role actually done isn't significant, and the other would be a crystal ball issue. Obviously lacking sourcing on top of that. I don't think the redirect would be particularly beneficial Nosebagbear (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing and notability issues abound. A redirect doesn’t seem to fit here. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 14:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she is mentioned on the page of her husband Chris Quilala, but since the only mentions of her I can find are a tiny number of blog posts, I don't thnk we need to refirect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:58, 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.

[1] ttp://www.genealogyintime.com/GenealogyResources/Articles/how_many_people_live_to_100_page1.html

[1]