Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 December	4 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Century School

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

No sources suggesting notability; external weblink dead Mccapra (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've added what appears to be a working website for this school; it's to a school of this name in Lebanon. I can't find any references that definitively say where this school is located, or other information. It's likely less notable than other schools of this name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per norm, no evidence that school meets notability. PlotHelpful (talk) 11:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need more sources than a school's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Braffet

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

fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete There doesn't seem to be any advance in Braffet's notability since the previous deletion decision. This appears to be eligible for speedy deletion WP:G4. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Also agree, this article looks eerily familiar to the one that was deleted a couple months ago. SportingFlyer talk 08:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Refusal to delete I refuse to delete the page because the personality deserves a wikipedia page. First, it contains 10 references in a specific section attesting that Kayla Braffet is deserving. The references come from Swedish newspapers recognized as reliable sources of information. She recently signed in a big football club. Therefore, erasing this page does not make sense. Because she is known in Sweden and in the world of women's football. It is therefore logical to maintain this page and not to erase it.Susanowoo 00:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like WP:PROMO and all the sources look to be WP:ROUTINE Abcmaxx (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article says she played for the Chicago Red Stars in the NWSL, which is a WP:FPL. I'm not sure why people are saying she fails WP:NFOOTY. The article needs cleanup, but that's not what AFD is for. Smartyllama (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although playing for the Red Stars would confer notability, I have found no evidence she was anything other than a practice squad player. Therefore, she fails WP:NFOOTY and apparently WP:GNG as well. If someone can provide evidence she actually played a game with the Red Stars, I would reconsider. Smartyllama (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the given sources are all WP:ROUTINE, either regular transfer/match coverage or not from independent sources (as with the first and ninth). Just like Smartyllama, I could not find any proof that she actually played in a game for the Red Stars, so she fails WP:NFOOTY as well. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who Prom (2013)

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

PROD and Redirect reverted, so bringing to AfD. Tagged for >5 years. No independent reliable source citations demonstrate notability: there are 5 references, one is RS but not about this (about a tangential fact), 2 are by the BBC so not independent, and 2 are fan sites. Transwiki to a Dr Who wiki and/or redirect. Bondegezou (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to The Proms. Maybe take whatever is salvageable from the article and put it in that redirect target. Passing mentions online plus the reasons the nom gave makes this a delete. The 2008 Doctor Who Prom which is much better sourced than this article, may have been a one off thing in terms of these proms being notable enough for a stand alone article. JC7V (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a merge with Doctor Who Prom (2008) would probably be best, but that would take more effort than I believe anyone is likely to put in. Failing that, a merge to The Proms seems best. I don't see any reason to keep individual articles on every concert in this long and annual series, based on some of the other concert series we have it might be reasonable to have an article on each year; the 2013 article would be another possible merge target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Doctor Who Prom (2008) as above, will do the merge Atlantic306 (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is not notable, but a redirect to Doctor Who Prom (2008) is possible. Personally I find an article on an individual Prom concert to be entirely pointless, and I would have it as a general article on Doctor Who music at the Prom rather than one from a specific year, therefore Doctor Who Prom (2008) should not really exist but an article Doctor Who Prom may (convert the disambiguation page into a general article). Hzh (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete As part of the 50th anniversary celebrations I did wonder if it had enough notability, but I am persuaded by the arguments here against retaining the article. I think a general Doctor Who Prom article might be the way to and it could cover this prom, Doctor Who Prom (2008) and Doctor Who Prom (2010), the last of which currently has no article, but is a redirect. Dunarc (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina Turner

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

Appears non-notable, national-level winner of minor beauty pagents. Blanked by an individual editor whose username matches the URL of her website. Declined a G7 since this was not the page creator, but I still think this is not notable enough to exist. Courcelles (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only claim of notability is roles in a series of minor pageants (and the article says she both organized and won the same pageant?), which probably wouldn't be sufficient even if well-sourced; sourcing is atrocious - mostly broken links to social media sites. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pageants were minor. If she was a winner of a well-known pageant and had the significant coverage to support, things would be different. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough singificant coverage to even qualify for this article, which it does not meet the WP:BLP and WP:GNG. Sheldybett (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Living Prime Ministers of Australia

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

In short, this is a list of various tenures of PMs of Australia and the number of former PMs alive during that tenure. Do we need such a convolution of existing data on wikipedia.

There are also pages like List of Prime Ministers of Australia by age,wouldn't a simple sort of the age column in List of Prime Ministers of Australia be enough? Daiyusha (talk) 10:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Special:PrefixIndex/Living Prime. Cabayi (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for keeping. In my opinion, all of those articles are just as liable for deletion as this one. Ajf773 (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fascinating? but certainly not encyclopedic, ie, what is the use of the articles. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, hence does not count. Sadly someone has done a lot of work. Definitely looks like WP:OR and mild WP:SYNTH. I note that at least one of the other existing articles is already tagged as such. If a graph could be provided of the number alive at any point in time it might be a !definite keep? Aoziwe (talk) 10:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No, the List of Prime Ministers of Australia by age can't be used to see the same information. The two Age columns are for the age at which the PM assumed office, and the age at which they left it. The Died column (the date of death) might have been used this way, but it sorts the living PMs (ie without a death date) next to those with the earliest death dates - and in any case, we'd need to be able to sort by multiple columns at once. This article could do with some improvement in the text (I don't think we've had any dead people who've served as PM), and it needs references, plus I would suggest reordering the columns to Start date, Start event, End date, End event, Duration, Living PMs - but it is a very useful tool for seeing which former PMs were alive at any point in time. As for whether it's a topic that is notable and has coverage: there are often articles about living former prime ministers in regards to how many are drawing pensions, and when one dies, how many are still alive and/or turn up at the funeral. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced and needless trivia. We already have List of Prime Ministers of Australia by age which is more encyclopedic and covers much of the content in this article without going in to WP:SYNTH territory. Ajf773 (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG, WP:LISTN, and WP:POLITICIAN .Bryson 85 (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unsourced, possibly WP:OR, fails WP:GNG (are there any other websites that list this information?). SportingFlyer talk 18:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Looks like a lot of original research went into this article. I cannot find sources, however, that validate it as a noteworthy topic requiring an article. How is GNG met, as it is argued, if the article is unsourced and no reliable sources have been offered?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and should delete by age list also, List of Prime Ministers of Australia will show who is alive and the age, the other two lists are pointless trivia. Govvy (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is trivia. LR.2002 (talk · contribs) was trying to do this template form in August before being blocked for sock-puppetry. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Power~enwiki - would you care to raise an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LukaRuckels so the article can be WP:G5'd and we can knock this discussion on the head? Cabayi (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it's stale. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:C5D5:BEE4:8670:ABAF (talk) 05:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that this was PRODded, unPRODded, and proposed for AfD all on the same day that the article was created. Why wasn't a tag added to the page before AfD, per WP:BEFORE? eg Notability, Unreferenced? RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RebeccaGreen If Daiyusha believes that the subject is not encyclopedic (wrongly in my view), that it's too much like WP:FANCRUFT, what difference would it make to add more sources, or to wait and let editors waste more time on it? What WP:BEFORE steps would, or could, alter Daiyusha's view? None that I can see. Cabayi (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivia Nick-D (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know a lot of people find these sort of articles fascinating. It's a good example of how each of the living PMs has changed over the years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.108.37 (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:INTERESTING isn't a reasonable argument against deletion. Ajf773 (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivia and original research Spiderone 18:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - valid topic per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Presidents of the United States - WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP and WP:Systemic bias 82.132.186.90 (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There is no precedent for articles like this, that other one just happened to pass an AfD. Ajf773 (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, "hey coola, can you tell me which ozzie pms are still alive?", "easy, just have a look at List of Prime Ministers of Australia, go down to the end of the list and there they are from Hawkie downwards", "thanks mate". Coolabahapple (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Kalda

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

His notability revolves around the claim that he won the Dr. B. C. Roy Award. But there are no reliable sources quoting he won it. Daiyusha (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of the current 4 references, #1 and #2 are to his appearance in the "Golden Book of World Records", #4 is a trivial mention. #3 [1] is more substantial, but not enough. The claim that he heads the project smile train in Chhattisgarh fails verification. Google search results just give social media, reviews on "doctor review" sites; nothing substantial. I don't see enough sourcing to keep this BLP article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above Spiderone 08:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Health in Myanmar. Can be userfied for improvement if desired. Sandstein 18:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hygiene and Sanitation in Myanmar

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

With no inline citations, and no references after each paragraph, it is difficult to keep this article in the mainspace. It may also include original research. As far as notability, I am not opining. Suggest deletion and recreation via WP:AFC, where the author, who seems inexperienced, can submit after better review. 1l2l3k (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's OR concerns. Further, there doesn't appear to be any convention of creating articles about "Hygiene and Sanitation in Country X". I would propose merging with Health in Myanmar, but the lack of inline citations would possibly make this more difficult than just sourcing new content. Copying the reflist to Health in Myanmar's talk page may be appropriate. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The sourcing issue needs to be fixed, otherwise it looks like there are enough sources to suggest that it might be a valid topic. Whether there are previous precedents for "Hygiene and Sanitation in Country X" is neither here nor there (something has to be the first), although there are many articles on "Water supply and sanitation in "Country X", one possibility is therefore retitling it after the sourcing has been fixed and rewritten, or it can stay as Hygiene and sanitation in Myanmar if there is enough RS on the issue to warrant its own article. Hzh (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Health in Myanmar; the lack of inline sourcing and the style issues (a heading "What Else Is Being Done") make a merge by anyone other than the original author almost impossible. If anyone can access the sources and wants to try, I encourage them to do so. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Leigh

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. No doubt written some books, no coverage whatsoever. scope_creep (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Meets WP:AUTHOR as his books have been reviewed world-wide, e.g. Daily Record and Times of SA. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources with any sort of substantial coverage? These are utterly trivial books. They don't justify an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't let the triviality of the books determine notability or substitute our judgment of the triviality of the books for the judgment of RS. If the books are reviewed then the RS have decided the author is notable. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the triviality of the books seems to have mitigated against them receiving any sort of serious review. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't let our own feelings about the seriousness of reviews influence our judgments about notability. If there are reviews and the reviews appear in RS at an appropriate level then the author is notable. Like this guy. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my personal subjective bias blinded me to the extensive career retrospective that was afforded in the TLS. Perhaps you have a link to it? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry that you feel that you have to resort to sarcasm, but the Times of SA is as good as the TLS for establishing notability. I mean, why not go try to AfD Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set based on the fact that it wasn't reviewed in the TLS? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks even one reliable source. This is not acceptable for a BLP.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, "c'mon!! with titles like The World According to Nigel Farage, FBI’s Most Wanted Cats, Teddy Bears Of The Rich & Famous, and The Extra-Terrestrial’s Guide To The X-Files, amongst others this guy has got to be notable!" "no coola, not without sources", "Drat!!" Coolabahapple (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and they simply don't meet WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plantmaps

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

Notability concerns for this website. None of the independent references mention plantmaps (and no significant independent coverage found); the page is almost G11-level advertisement. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Agree that this is almost fit for G11. Sdmarathe (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the Throne of Judgment

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

No indication of meeting WP:BAND notability guidelines. Little coverage on google searches. The references given are not significant coverage, just band listings and a press release about the initial breaking up of the band. noq (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment.~~ Weak keep. At first I thought it didn't meet WP:NMUSIC and I typed out a whole blurb about not being able to find any sources... then I re-read the article. "they were signed by Oregon record label Rise Records in November 2006." Well Rise Records is a subsidiary of BMG, which is definitely a major label, therefore passes WP:NMUSIC #5 (signed to major label). At the same time, I'm not really sure this is enough to keep this article, for there's really no reliable sources for this article... other than Allmusic and two sentences from metalarchives. Would like to hear from other people's opinions on this one.Awsomaw (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But is a subsidiary of a Major label automatically significant? Typically the major label's only connection is ownership. Sometimes a label is something that is acquired in a larger purchase of an umbrella parent company. Shouldn't the label's significance be assessed per its own merits rather than by who owns it? Have there been previous discussions/consensus on this? ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'm not really sure myself, I just assumed that subsidiaries of major labels world count, since there's so many artists that fall under that branch. I may be wrong though, maybe someone more knowledgeable on these rules could inform me.Awsomaw (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rise records was bought by BMG in 2015 - well after the band signed and subsequently broke up. So was Rise records a major label at the time? noq (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even if it isn’t a major label at the time, WP:MUSIC also accepts “one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).” Rise Records definitely has a lot of history; and their lineup is incredibly strong; I know quite a few bands on their list from my emo phase; and all of them have wiki articles and are notable in their own right, charting on billboard and participating in large festivals.Awsomaw (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since Rise Records has had more than a decade of history by the time they signed the band, and the fact that many bands on their roster at the time were notable, I will change to weak keep. Awsomaw (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading #5 of WP:NMUSIC, the rule only applies if they released 2 albums on the label. They only released 1 album on the label, therefore, I don't think the rule applies. I'll still keep it as Weak keep because of the reason provided by Michig. Awsomaw (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Allmusic biography and album review, PopMatters review, and two pieces on the album from Alternative Press ([2], [3]), and probably sufficient to support a short article, and there's likely additional coverage in print sources. --Michig (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Dwarf roleplaying game

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

Article on a text-based video game has had no WP:INDEPENDENT sources for the preceding five (5) years. A basic BEFORE (Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, newspapers.com) finds no WP:RS providing WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 08:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: fails WP:GNG, no independent secondary coverage. SportingFlyer talk 17:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flippening

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

A dictionary definition of a non-notable cryptocurrency neologism. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources. Retimuko (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless quite a bit more mainstream RS coverage can be found - David Gerard (talk) 11:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mikko S. Niemelä

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

WP:BLP of a computer security expert, not properly referenced as meeting a Wikipedia notability standard. The references here are not reliable source media coverage about him -- right across the board, they're primary sources, media sources in which he's the bylined author and not the subject, or glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite in coverage of other things. The editor who brought it to my attention as a potential AFD candidate has also already removed a couple of bad sources, namely a patent application directory and a Facebook post, which aren't notability-building references either. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their existence can be technically verified on the web -- this article says nothing about him that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG on the strength of real media coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: There does not appear to be much written about Niemela that is not adapted from his own website. WP:TOOSOON David notMD (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jora.com

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

non notable website. No indication of WP:notability. Only references are to the site itself or a piece on the owning company that merely names it. Google searches provide very few hits and no significant coverage. noq (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of reliable sources sustaining notability. FOARP (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of RS coverage to demonstrate meeting either WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no appropriate coverage at all. Aoziwe (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Speedy candidate. There is nothing out there for reliable sources other than a few brief mentions. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Alexa indicates that this is 217th site in its main market. However, my searches are not finding the WP:RS coverage about the site which which would be needed to demonstrate WP:NWEB / WP:GNG notability. AllyD (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lack of notability. Sdmarathe (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was that sourcing was enough to pass notability criteria. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zara Holland

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

Lacking comprehensive coverage other than her Miss Great Britain and Love Island, also it lacks major sources despite gains media attention of the latter. Sheldybett (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is basically WP:BLP2E? Regards So Why 14:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I do not understand this nomination. The sources already in the article, which include coverage from the BBC and the Independent as well as other RS, already meet the GNG. There are plenty of others. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources indicating notability are plentiful. FOARP (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - surely a Miss GB title would pass WP:BLPN? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bahá'í study circle

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

This doesn't rise above the level of dictionary definition. It's not distinct from study circles in any other religion, and there are no reliable independent sources, the cited sources establish that the article is a novel synthesis. Guy (Help!) 08:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure how this article is different from Local Spiritual Assembly. Bkissin (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think deleting it makes sense. I agree that the article as-is serves little purpose. There is a lot more that can be said on the topic of the current activities of the Bahá'í community, including study circles, but I don't think it makes sense to have an article dedicated to them. Rm9820 (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. FOARP (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough to merge. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution from Tourism and Travel to GDP by Country

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

...not a suitable addition to the encyclopedia because it seems mostly to consist of a regurgitation of a data table produced elsewhere, with little or no context to show that secondary sources consider this a notable set of statistics. That one source is pretty clearly attached to the tourism industry, so its own interest in the subject would not count towards notability. Even if you had those secondary sources, you generally would not copy this entire table into the article, but simply pull a few important data points and give a reference to the rest (from my advice on User talk:Elise Furgurson) — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly of encyclopedic interest, this deals with global numbers and than breaks out data by country. We have many articles on various economic activity. It is really interesting to compare countries because it says a lot about different economies. I'm not bothered that the data is publised by a tourism industry source. Most data is collected and published by organisations that are interested in the data. Legacypac (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither "We have other such lists" nor "It's interesting" are good arguments in a deletion discussion. WP:LISTN is not the most helpful notability guideline, but it says: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". That doesn't seem to be the case here. Rather, the data seems to be aggregated into such a list only by statistics websites that advertise having billions of such data sets. Beyond the notability issue, both our article and the statistics website that's the main source contain bizarre misinterpretations or errors of fact (different ones!), and there's a decided WP:SYN element to the list. Huon (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Move to create new section in Tourism article then delete. Battleofalma (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well a simple Google search turns up:

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/top-10-countries-most-reliant-on-tourism.html

httpss//www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/05/11/where-tourism-gives-the-biggest-economic-boost-infographic/amp/

And many more sources that discuss this topic in detail, globally, regionally, or nationally. Legacypac (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Those include statistics websites with different and conflicting data, a blog, a press release and a bunch of otherwise problematic sources. There are a few in there that might actually be helpful, but I'll wait to see whether it's actually possible to improve the article itself (which still contains a blatant error of fact) before reconsidering my opinion. Summarizing the gist in the tourism article might be a good solution. Huon (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an error - fix it. You can dismiss one of the links as a press release, which it is, but it is a press release by a United Nations agency, not some commercial press release. Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I currently don't think the article should be kept, I'll wait with spending effort on it until after the discussion is over. Huon (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I'd be a bit concerned about the conflation of tourism, per se, with other varieties of travel. The combination of the two certainly looks bigger than tourism alone, but most of the interest is in tourism itself. And one of the things that can often be found alongside interest in tourism is boosterism, hence my interest in keeping WP articles as close to neutral as possible. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Travel and tourism covers it. Who or what is being boosted here? Legacypac (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list itself has to be notable, not just the individual items within it, and there's no evidence that this is the case. FOARP (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT; a very low-quality essay that is clearly not an encyclopedia article. We probably do need an article on Tourism by country, the existing articles on World Tourism rankings and Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report each cover a single source on that topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bridie Barry

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

Not all journalists are notable. I don't see what makes this person pass WP:BIO. No awards, no in-depth coverage of her work, just a few mention in passing and short professional bios in non-independent places, like her former workplaces etc. Just having a career doesn't make one encyclopedic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of significant RS coverage to demonstrate meeting WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:NJOURNALIST. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is plenty of routine expected coverage, ie, commercial and promotion in line with being a reporter, so they exist and do their job, but I can see nothing to indicate any notability. Aoziwe (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of supercentenarians by continent#Oldest Oceanian people ever. Sandstein 18:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Schmierer

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

No independent notability besides her exceptional longevity. The only coverage this person received was because of her reaching an advanced age. Her age is notable, not her life or deeds. Hence her placement among the oldest Oceanian people ever is sufficient for recording notable facts in this encyclopedia. — JFG ^talk 09:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was not just her age (112 years) that was notable. For the last two years of her life, she was the last Australian living who had been born before Australia became a nation, and she, and her experience of her life, became notable because of that. The List of supercentenarians from Oceania does not, and cannot, record that. She meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article blatantly fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like administrative changes in her lifetime and all her various moves. Furthermore, she does not inherit per WP:NOTINHERITED the notability of Australia's shift from colony to country just because she was a citizen of both entities. And as the article itself says, "Her life was very ordinary until she reached the age of 110." Enough said. She belongs on a list, nothing more. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, it seems that there is a group of editors determined to remove all articles about supercentenarians. I expect you will succeed. I don't find terms like 'blatantly', 'packed with' and 'fancruft' rational - they seem highly emotive. (I had to look 'fancruft' up - I gather it's a term that originated on Wikipedia.) And, like all Wikipedia guidelines, WP:BIO1E seems to be applied somewhat subjectively. I would not consider that being notable for a period of two years for one's extreme age, for living across 3 centuries, and for being the last person born before nationhood, counts as 'one event'. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on this one. Subject is also a published author. And there are more general references and mentions. Aoziwe (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That book is a mere small autobiography, not a notable work of non-fiction. It does nothing to prove notability. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is very very rare I suggest for anyone to publish anything at that age though! Aoziwe (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the list of Oceania supercentenarians. Writing an autobiography and maintaining brain waves for a long time isn't sufficient for a standalone article, but per the new sources it seems there's enough interest from secondary sources for a minibio; that would seem to make the most sens. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found the page, read "Her life was very ordinary" and knew how to vote. Living across three centuries is just the timing of parents deciding to have you before the turn of the ccentury and then not dying for 100 years. Lots of people were born before Australia became independant, and they all died eventually. Legacypac (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being the oldest something does not make you autonotable. WP:BIO1E. » Shadowowl | talk 10:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "I found the page, read "Her life was very ordinary" and knew how to vote." Most people's lives are ordinary before they become notable, and some people's lives are ordinary after they have been notable. Living to an advanced age is not a criterion that excludes someone from being notable. Oh, and then "not dying for a hundred years"? Easy, right? I have gathered from the so-called Wikipedia project Longevity that this round of deletions is meant to be establishing guidelines for notability among supercentenarians. I have seen no evidence of that whatsoever in the votes of members of that project. Some supercentenarians get far more coverage, over a longer period of time, than others. But that is clearly of no interest to all the editors who are determined to delete them just because they were notable in their extreme old age. Thankfully, Wikipedia is not the only source, or even the best source, of information in the world. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect/merge "married to dairy farmer" is the only fact about her given. E Eng 05:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon's Eye (symbol)

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

The two mentions in the old books are short encyclopedia pieces of dubious quality. SPLC doesn't appear to mention it, only shows photos. Only ref of any substance is the LA times article, and as it's part of a sort of list, I don't think it's enough to establish notability for this symbol. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 07:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~What is SPLC? The SPLC disambiguation page doesn't seem to have anything relevant.~~ SpinningSpark 23:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that this is not good as a standalone article, but the information is fulfilling Wikipedia's mission. Ideally, this should be merged to an overview article, but no suitable article seems to exist. So either keep as is until Ancient Germanic symbols, or similar article, is created and mark it for merging, or else repurpose to the more notable topic and mark it as needing expansion. Either way, I am at WP:PRESERVE on this one. SpinningSpark 13:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The page isn't high quality, the information isn't sourced or is sourced to shifty-looking books like those symbol ones. I'm not sure this is worth keeping.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 03:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that WP:GNG is not met. However, the LA Times source, though not sufficient for notability, provides some reliable information about the symbol. How about a redirect to Identity Evropa, which is the only verified usage of the symbol we have? BenKuykendall (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure that The Woman's Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred Objects [4] has nothing to do with Identity Evropa. There is entry for it and an early edition featured it prominently on the cover. I also doubt that the majority of people using it as a talisman (pendant, tattoo etc) are members. The description here for instance (not a usable RS) sounds more new-age hippy than extreme right racist to me. SpinningSpark 18:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, it's not exclusively an Identity Evropa thing. I think we should probably just delete it, maybe integrating the LA times information into Identity Evropa's page.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 19:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yellow diamond, why are books on symbols "shifty-looking" (I meant to ask you that earlier). That's just where we should be looking for information on symbols. SpinningSpark 20:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- - Koch's book in particular, whose second edition is from 1955, did look like some sort of suspicious pseudo-Germanic kind of new age thing. More importantly, it was a trivial mention, just an image with a caption in a long list. The other might be okay, actually, although the information cited to it seems dubious to me personally. I'd still argue that it's a trivial mention,as it's an entry in what's basically an encyclopedia of symbols.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 22:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FarEast Amusement Research

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

Article on a company has had no sources for the preceding 11 years. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books) fails to reveal any RS sources. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 05:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. Maybe there's something in Japanese, but not much in English; the best I found is a sentence in passing in this academic article [5]. Publishing companies need some coverage as well to pass WP:NCOMPANY. I'd suggest a merge, but there's no great target (Tabletop role-playing games in Japan?) plus the article is unreferenced. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ORG; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jat Mehar Singh Dahiya

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. A sole mention of an event commemorating him at Dainik Bhaskar and another trivial mention over an unreliable POV-ppushing op-ed at India Times. ∯WBG^converse 07:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added 3 more references. The fact that Haryana State awards a cultural prize in his honour, and a book like Haryana at Crossroads laments that the language has not produced any great poets since his time, indicates that he is both well known and honoured. There are probably more sources that are not in English, and not online, but the references included here show that he meets WP:AUTHOR, #1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.". RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Hindi Poet who has reasonable coverage in English Media based on the sources. hindustan Times, [6] bhaskar[7]--DBig Xrayᗙ 09:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Sabuneti

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

PROD'd and dePROD'd earlier today.

Original PROD reasoning: Searched Google, GBooks, GNews, AllAfrica.com, and found nothing about this sculptor except profiles on commercial art sales sites. The ref given in the article is a good example of the kind of unreliable sources I found - it's a group that sells sculptures so it has a direct commercial interest in the subject and is therefore not independent. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. (This article is also a somewhat apparent paraphrase of the source, but not quite enough that I was comfortable G12ing it).

De-PROD'd after the addition of three sources. I am of the opinion that they don't indicate that the subject meets NARTIST at all. The two sources from the Herald (via AllAfrica.com) are simply mentions of his name in the context of other things. The one from news day spends all of two sentences mentioning the subject. It's not enough to keep an article.

Merely exhibiting, even in one notable museum, doesn't meet point 4 of NARTIST; the exhibit itself has to be significant. Otherwise the works have to be permanently in the collection of several notable galleries or museums. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added the references and removed the PROD. I have concerns about finding information on individual sculptors from Zimbabwe. The permanent collection of the National Gallery of Zimbabwe is not searchable online, as the national galleries of many countries are. International exhibitions are often reported in the media of the countries visited as simply 'Shona Art', with far more of the article expended on the organisers of the trip than the artists. The artists' names may be spelled in different ways, making searching difficult. Zimbabwe itself has been dangerous to visit for many years, media has not been independent, and it is not a place which outsiders are likely to visit to write about the artists. So it is hard to see how the significant coverage of prominent sculptors (or other professionals) is going to be found. If the articles that do mention them state that certain artists are notable, and have inspired others, or the artists have been exhibited internationally, that is evidence that they are notable. It may be worth digging in the permanent collection indexes of major galleries outside Zimbabwe, to see what Zimbabwean sculpture they have and whether they have recorded the artists' names. I don't know whether there have been previous discussions on this or similar topics, but I think that these artists deserve more than a PROD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it is hard to see how the significant coverage of prominent sculptors (or other professionals) is going to be found - I rest my case. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The argument that this is a "dangerous" country (it's not much more dangerous than many other parts of Africa), and that it lacks media coverage as a country because of economic inequality or lack of development etc. is beside the point. There's a policy for this, which I cannot remember, but essentially it says we are not here to address world inequalities. You either have the sources or do not; we are blind to social, economic or developmental conditions on the ground. (Additionally, I can easily read hundreds of recent articles written by independent publications in and out of Zim, so I am not sure what the comment above is about.) What is relevant to this discussion is the fact that that sources are not available for this artist to support his notability. I saw one in Google books and not much more elsewhere. GNG fail based on lack of independent reliable sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to hear the opinion of someone from Zimbabwe. Is it likely this person is covered in undigitized Zimbabwean sources? Many African countries have very little of their local media digitized. It might just take a trip to a local library there. Kaldari (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while continuing to source more information. Having work displayed in the National Gallery is nothing to sneeze at, it's already clear that he's shown internationally from the EU to South Korea, and the News Day source alone gives decent information about him specifically, including some biographical details. That's no small feat for a sculptor from Zimbabwe, and so should be enough to meet NARTIST 4b, substantial part of a significant exhibition, since "significant" should be considered in context. I expect what RebeccaGreen and Kaldari are suggesting is not to right great wrongs, but simply consider the context of sources created about Zimbabwean individuals. If he was an artist from the US or UK, you might expect more significant coverage in more sources, but for a Zimbabwean artist, significant mention in online sources is much rarer, and since someone has already found a few I'd expect more sources to be uncovered with more time and digging. Siko (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that a "significant" exhibition is one which is independently notable, which none of his exhibitions seem to be. The two sentences in Newsday may provide information about him, but they hardly constitute significant in-depth coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're getting at, but I note that we do not have notability standards based on the cultural, economic or social development of a city or country. To do so we would have to have a policy (we don't have one) or each editor would have to exercise a subjective scale in interpreting sources, depending on the development of the country (we don't do that). The fact of the matter is that unless you are a Zimbabwean curator or museum director who is familiar with the scene there, an individual can't really gauge his notability. This is why we rely on independent RS: to eliminate the guesswork and notability handicapping that you suggest above, and to keep a minimum of objectivity in the process. We don't need to make assumptions about the state of a country, or to make arguments for why the person might not show up int he press. We just need to assess and count the sources. Zimbabwe itself has plenty of reliable source publishers that can be found online, but unfortunately this artist does not show up in them frequently enough to be considered notable.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 10:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Committee for Safety of Foreign Exchange Students

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

A horrifically-written article on a group that doesn't appear to be notable. "Infozine" doesn't appear to be a reliable source, and other references are trivial: an example is the CNN one, which refers Danielle Grijalva, director of the Committee for Safety of Foreign Exchange Students but doesn't discuss the group further. I see no evidence this "group" is anything other than a DBA for Danielle Grijalva. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nobody wants to keep this. Sandstein 17:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coldhart

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. The first source cited in the article is a YouTube video; the second source cited does not mention "Coldhart". Except for this source, an online search for secondary sources to support notability yielded only trivial mention. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources, except for this. No indication of awards or charted songs. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The YouTube video is an interview on the channel of a reputable music blog. As far as the name, he's gone by both when uploading music. Mostly "Coldhart" which is why I named the article that. Sromero78 (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability" per WP:PSTS. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete interivews are not reliable sources and cannot be used to move towards notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quick google search nets me a fader article about Coldhart's music video. I did a bit more research, Coldhart is a member of a emo-rap group called GothBoiClique which used to include Lil Peep. Many other articles mention Coldhart, including this one about another member of GothBoiClique added to Billboard's music festival. This still does not pass notability standards, but I'd like to point out that GothBoiClique is notable enough to have their own article, where Coldhart can be redirected to and talked about. There also may be more articles about Coldhart I could not find, or perhaps the rapper is still developing his popularity, in which WP:TOOSOON applies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awsomaw (talk • contribs) 02:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karlie Redd

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

Simply put, she is a non-notable VH1 personality (and VH1 should not even ethically be a reference here since that’s her employer) and there are no reliable sources to establish notability outside of Love and Hip Hop series. The fact that the article keeps saying facts about her life are unverifiable is my point in itself. Trillfendi (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Even without the VH1 sources, there are multiple sources on the page that establish notability under WP:BIO. A quick Google search turned up a few recent stories, e.g. 1 3. That some of her biographical information hasn't been verified does not discount notability. --Citrivescence (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Citrivescence: Come on now. Gossip from gossip sites is not notability. Gossip about not getting a spin off isn’t notability. Atlanta Black Star is not a reliable source nor is HelloBeautiful. Redirection is the only viable choice. I’m simply pointing out that because she lacks actual significant coverage from reliable sources rather than gossip sites who talk about what rapper she’s dating, no one has actually manages to find such absolutely basic information like her real name People really grasped for straws for this “source”; I never said lack of verifiable details is the lack of notability (I could have worded that differently), it’s the lack of significant coverge from reliable sources why I proposed deletion. Not 1 independent a/o reliable source was given here and when I actually tried to look, not 1 was found. “Karlie Redd gets engaged” is not notable whatsoever.Trillfendi (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Trillfendi: My sense is that she is very notable outside of mainstream news outlets. She is also a musician and an actress, and accordingly I found sourcing in other outlets that cover hip hop and African American entertainment (which are not gossip sites): www.thesource.com, www.ebony.com, www.chicagodefender.com. The page can be improved. And aside from the sourcing, I don't think a marriage is non-notable simply because certain audiences may not know or care about someone. --Citrivescence (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Citrivescence: I’m not saying marriage is notable, I’m saying “Karlie Redd gets engaged” headlines don’t do it. As shown on Love and Hip Hop: Atlanta, she doesn’t have a music career to speak of. And outside of a one minute role in Top Five, she doesn’t really have an acting career to speak of either.Trillfendi (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: I can't comment on the state of her career--I think you may be more familiar with her work than me! Again, I argue she's notable and will search for better sources and attempt to improve the page.--Citrivescence (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Love and Hip Hop. Gossip stories cannot substitute for reliable, secondary coverage, especially when evaluating GNG. I believe the amount of guess work on her life may also be a BLP concern.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linga Bhairavi

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

Not notable. This appears to be an innovation of Jaggi Vasudev's Isha Foundation and the temple is on their private grounds. The Dictionary of Hinduism citation is about "Bhairavi" and not "Linga Bhairavi". A couple of other citations are from the Isha Blog and the official site of the subject. Most of the other citations see mentions of the subject during Navaratri celebrations on the aforementioned grounds and one for a CD released in the subject's honour by a devotee and singer. There is one Springer source that does note a "Linga Bhairavi yantra" but again, in the context of the Isha Foundation. I believe that these are insufficient.

This article is largely promotional. It should at best be merged with Isha Foundation or Dhyanalinga. —Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. The 'Linga Bhairavi' appears to be a unique invention of the Isha Foundation, unlike for instance the more widespread Shiva Linga. The article seems promotional. Cesdeva ^(talk) 22:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blackout (musical group)

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

The main source for this article is Blood & Honour. There's also a Swedish metal fan blog, and a single possibly RS, a book, “The White Nationalist Skinhead Movement: UK & USA, 1979 - 1993”, Feral House, 2015, by Forbes and Stampton, the latter of whom appears to have no other work to his name. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Student Representation at the University of Hawaii

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

There does not appear to be any claim to notability here. What we have is in effect an exerpt from Chapter 7 of the UH System Policies and Procedures & Chapter 7 of Board of Regents Policy. Tagishsimon (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial distinction. Worth a line in the article on the Uni. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable independent of Hawaii university per WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 16:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Of further note is that the article has received a significant amount of cleanup work after being nominated for deletion. See its Revision history for a summary of edits that have occurred. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Jolicoeur

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

Improperly written and improperly referenced article about an artist. This is not written as a biographical article at all, but instead starts with a header titled "critique of her works" and then proceeds from there to be exactly the original research essay, complete with addressing the reader as "you" in the second person, of your nightmares. And then at the end it just devolves into straight-on résumé.
And for referencing, we just have (a) her self-published résumé, and (b) a bare-url'ed link that just goes to a ProQuest login screen, which I can't log into because my ProQuest access doesn't work that way -- but even when I do log into my ProQuest account through the method that does work for me, I still can't find a piece of content in it that actually supports any of the art criticism essay parts that are referenced to it.
She might have a legitimate claim of notability, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually show and reference one. But this, as written, is so egregiously bad that it needs the blow it up and start over treatment regardless of her notability or lack thereof. Bearcat (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, the article is awful, but she is notable, with work in the National Gallery of Canada and significant coverage in Female Gazes: Seventy-five Women Artists (book chapter devoted to her), Feminism and Contemporary Art: The Revolutionary Power of Women's Laughter, Faking Death: Canadian Art Photography and the Canadian Imagination, In visible light: photography and classification in art, science and the everyday, etc. Much of the existing content would need to be cut. --Michig (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never said she didn't have a potential claim of notability, I merely said that as written it's a pile of garbage that needs such a fundamental top-to-bottom overhaul of every single thing about it that recreating a new article is more appropriate than simply trying to clean this version up (which won't actually happen anytime soon, if Wikipedia's record on such matters is anything to go by). Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So now you admit that you nominated an article for deletion even though you knew the subject was notable? You ought to withdraw this nom. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. Notable topics can still have their articles deleted if the article is problematic — deletion does not create a permanent ban on her ever being allowed to have an article at all, because people are allowed to try again if they can do better. We most certainly can delete even notable topics if the article that actually exists has other problems besides notability itself, such as being a copyright violation or a blatant advertisement or an original research essay instead of a properly written encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is too how it works. There is no deletion policy that supports deleting an article whose subject satisfies the GNG just because you think the article sucks. Cite some policy if I'm wrong. And don't cite anything to do with copyright violations, because obviously that's not on point. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reat WP:TNT, which quite clearly specifies that articles can be deleted regardless of notability if they're written so egregiously badly that restarting the whole thing from scratch would be easier and more efficient than trying to clean up all the problems with the existing version. And the next time you feel any sort of urge to play the "I know how Wikipedia works better than a person who's been a well-respected Wikipedia administrator for 15 years, with a very strong reputation for knowing the ropes" card, put it back in the deck and leave it there. Bearcat (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, I read WP:TNT a long time ago. I started with the template on the top "which quite clearly specifies that" it is an essay and is not policy. Of course articles can be deleted regardless of notability for any reason whatsoever. All it takes is an admin with no scruples who doesn't understand the difference between a policy and an essay and who thinks that the argument from authority isn't a fallacy to hit one button. And the next time you feel any sort of urge to play the "I know how Wikipedia works better than an IP whose qualifications I have no way whatsoever of knowing" card, put it back in the deck and leave it there. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. But you probably won't be. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to be ashamed of myself at all — but you obviously need to also read WP:ONLYESSAY if you think "that's only an essay and not a policy" is a valid counterargument to what I said. We have policies to explain what to do and guidelines to clarify how to do it, so guidelines are every bit as binding as full policies in the absence of a compelling reason to make an exception to them, and are not ignorable just because they're "essays". Deleting a bad article does not prevent a better one from being recreated after the deletion, so one does not have to be "unscrupulous" to support the TNT principle at all — one simply has to actually care about the quality of Wikipedia content, which is not a bad thing (though it may well be a pointless "King Canute trying to hold back the tide" thing, at the rate things are going.) Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing about that only-an-essay is that it recommends that deletion is only appropriate when there is an actual reason to delete the edit history, which is not the case here. So not only are you confusing essays with policy but the essays are not even on point. Perhaps shame isn't the appropriate response. Have you considered standing for reconfirmation as an admin? And at least you've dropped your "you can't possibly know as much about WP as I do because you are only a lowly IP" argument. But it's embarrassing to everyone that you used it in the first place. For all you know I'm on the arbitration committee. You've certainly given no reason to believe that you understand WP better than I do and have provided significant evidence that you don't, King Canute. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Meets WP:ARTIST 4(c). For instance, here's an article from Mosaic focusing on her work. This article from Tessera discusses her work in some depth, and so on. Obviously the present sad state of the article is only an argument for cleanup through ordinary editing. It's unrelated to notability. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is such a thing as an article being so egregiously bad that even if the subject does pass a notability standard, deleting the existing version and restarting a new one from scratch is still preferable to simply attempting to clean up the existing article. This one has overshot that line by enough to land on the moon. Bearcat (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then stub it. There's no justification in policy for deleting it if the subject meets the GNG. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stub what? If I were to remove all of the inappropriate content from this article, what would be left is "Nicole Jolicoeur is an artist who exists, the end". Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is your objection to that? That's how many articles start out. Are you some kind of nihilist? We believe in nothing, Lebowski. Nothing! 192.160.216.52 (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:ARTIST, in addition to sources listed by above editors, her works are in collections of Musée national des beaux-arts du Québec - Déprises II, National Gallery of Canada - The Perfect Path, Canadian Art Bank - Le jardin de JM Charcot, Université du Québec à Montréal Gallery - Petite prose I, II et III, ps. although i sympathise with nominator about the article's condition, it is not beyond salvage, the infobox is ok, as is the tiny lead:)), if someone wants to remove the rest then add say a "Collections" section using the info i have included here, that would be a start. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

done.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. What ever happened to "deletion is not cleanup"? She is well known here, and to quote a random bio, her work is in the "Musée National des Beaux-Arts du Québec, the National Gallery of Canada, the Musée-Château d'Annecy in France, the Canada Council Art Bank, the Université du Québec à Montréal..."ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cut the objectionable OR section and the objectionable resume section. I added 6 new refs.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 07:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedral Quartet

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

Notability concerns, especially WP:BAND OhKayeSierra (talk) 06:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Amongst other reasons, 5 Grammy nominations. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has a major claim of significance with five grammy nominations and also has significant coverage in reliable sources such as an AllMusic bio here which I will add to the article. They also have significant press and book coverage and therefore deserve to be included, passing WP:NMUSIC Atlantic306 (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nomination is an example of our pestilential plague of PRESENTISM, and a WP:BEFORE fail. This gospel group was a big deal back in the day. Coverage exists. Article just needs an editor to improve the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus, especially since the article was improved. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Street (Ottawa)

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

Article about a city street, not properly referenced as clearing our notability standards for local roads. A city street is not automatically notable enough for its own article just because you can describe its physical characteristics, or even because you list the public transit routes that happen to use it -- the key to making a road notable enough is to show and reliably source some political, social or historical context for what makes it important. (For example, Christopher Street in New York City has an article, because it has a national historic designation as the nexus of the riot that changed LGBT history -- but the technically much busier arterial street in Toronto that I can spit onto from my bedroom window just has a redirect to a city neighbourhood it passes through, because its only real claim to notability is lending its name to that neighbourhood.) This, however, is referenced 5/7 to maps (and it was actually fully 3/4 mapsourced until I stripped the WP:CIRCULAR reference to a user-created Wikipedia map) -- and of the two sources that are actually text, one is a primary source government report from the municipal government, hence not a notability-building source, and the only one that's actually real WP:GNG-eligible media is a glancing namecheck of the street's existence in an article about the Confederation Line. Neither the context nor the sourcing here are enough to make a street notable enough for its own encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question There are other Ottawa streets that have pages that are less notable then this and those pages are even smaller (some referencing only one or even no sources). Should those pages be nominated for deletion as well? – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 03:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tag it for more development perhaps. Add a list of historic buildings along the street perhaps. It is the second street in from Wellington (Welllington runs in front of the parliament buildings, Sparks is the first street) in the capital of a nation which has reasonable economic and social and environmental policies and practices. I note there is Streets and highways of Washington, D.C. covering the capital of a lesser nation. There is List of roads in Ottawa which is not well-developed (it is just a list with no map and no discussion) but which could/should be better developed, and possibly some items like Queen Street could be merged/redirected to sections there, but there is no urgency IMO. --Doncram (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a pretty important street in Downtown Ottawa. The article just needs to be improved. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 20:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just needs to be improved. It is important though its use of the railing. I say keep and tag it. AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the Keep votes so far have discussed sourcing, which is necessary for streets to be included in our encyclopedia. I agree with the nominator the sourcing for this street isn't quite there - three of the sources in the article are to Google Maps(!!). Also I've looked and found other articles about the street to try to improve the article, finding this [8] (interesting, but RS?), this webpage from the city [9], and these on the Confederation Line construction [10] [11]. I don't think any of these are significant/non-routine enough, and I can't find much else. If other Ottawa streets are more poorly sourced perhaps we should take a look at those as well, but WP:OSE. SportingFlyer talk 04:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not implying WP:OSE, I'm just asking, I can nominate them if you want. I think we should give the article time to grow and tag it, but I'll do what I can. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 21:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SportingFlyer. The article makes no claim of significance; it is a bland description similar to that which could be written about any street. Without in-depth coverage in RS, it is not notable. MB 14:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've expanded the article to talk more about the renewal, an historic burial site and other things. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 22:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY, Keep. BrandonXL has done considerable building of article during discussion. And street is part of a project to "urbanize" Ottawa with mass transit and pedestrian-friendly shopping/dining area of which Queen is part. Useful article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow the improved version, which has some sources, to be discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the this source in the article and also 1, 2, 3 it is clearly a significant street disucssed in detail in reliable sources.--Pontificalibus 13:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ability Online

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

The article does not meet the criteria for WP:NOTABILITY. I have not been able to locate any secondary sources about this website. CircleGirl (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Nicholas et al, while a primary source for the effects of the website, is a fine secondary source on the website itself. However, I couldn't find any other significant coverage (passing mention, passing mention 2). Enterprisey (talk!) 02:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject lack in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Organizations are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they can technically be referenced to their own self-published websites. Our notability standards now are much tighter, and much more dependent on reliable source coverage than they were at the time of the first discussion, so the fact that I argued the other way the first time, with reasoning that would get me laughed out of clown college today, is ironic but not determinative. An organization needs to be the subject of enough media coverage to clear WP:ORGDEPTH, not just to have its own website, in order to qualify for a Wikipedia article in 2018. Bearcat (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10034-85-2

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

Does it make sense to have pages or redirects for CAS Registry numbers? There are I think about 200 million of them. Or does this just represent confusion about why the two have the same RSN? DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not exceedingly familiar with CAS Registry numbers, but I'm going to assume that the reason this disambiguation exists is exclusively because the number refers to two related but distinct entities. That being said, I can't imagine that, out of the 200 million numbers, this is the only case where that occurs. I also just don't think it's necessary. Gargleafg (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is not necessary in the slightest. Nobody expects anyone to search up this string of numbers on Wikipedia. say what (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, and I'm pretty sure this is not the only one used for multiple substances. I'd also like to point out that this page had exactly zero views in one year before it was nominated here at AFD, supporting that it is not necessary. ComplexRational (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page-view argument is incorrect and invalid. This page was created on December 1, 2018, and I definitely saw it in the new-pages queue before it was nominated here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. My vote is unchanged, however. ComplexRational (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure that hydrogen iodide and hydroiodic acid need to be separate articles. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Price (librarian)

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

WP:NOTLINKEDIN, WP:NOTWHOSWHO. This is a non-notable bio subject. All sourcing is primary. It's a résumé (appears to have literally been copy-pasted from a bio on his hard drive or maybe one of his websites, and was clearly being edited by him from day one, to include his hobbies, where he likes to eat, etc. While it's been cleaned up by me and many before me, what's left (without removing any unsourced but potentially legit info) simply isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a Who's Who in Libraries or Who's Who in SEO entry. The entire purpose of the page is promotional, of Price's websites and of his red-link friends, and was littered with WP:EL violations. The book prominently mentioned (twice) is from a self-publishing imprint, the offerings of which are almost all "how to make money on the Internet" types of no-name-author monographs.

Not speedily deletable since there's an assertion of importance (some awards). However, the awards are from a minor trade association in a sub-discipline (not entirely trivial, but does not establish notability, just professional competence in one field), and a back-pat from his alumni association, which is entirely trivial. I thought about prodding it, but it's clear that the subject himself comes back as an anon periodically to "maintain" the page; it would likely just get re-created in different wording later.

I'm not finding anything usable in a Google news search on him. His name is mentioned fairly often in library-related sites and publications, but just as a citation attribution, or as the name of a co-editor of a resource they're pointing to (which is now part of Library Journal and owned by Media Source Inc., not by him and the partner). There's nothing I can find that is in-depth coverage of him, in multiple, independent, reliable sources. By way of comparison, I am not encyclopedically notable, yet I have more press coverage (actually about, not just mentioning, me) than this subject does, and I put out a book with a legit major publisher, and have friends and collaborators whose names I could drop as links that aren't red. Price clearly isn't notable either. This is a vanity article that has slipped through the cracks (didn't even have any cleanup templates on it, somehow) since August 2004. It's had over 14 years to turn into a proper article, and it's just not going to happen.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject doesn't meet any standard of notability. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable librarian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator after significant improvement (non-admin closure) CThomas³ (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Girls Under Glass

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

No significant coverage found for this band per WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quick google search found that they just released a new song, which was reported on by german media [1][2] In addition, I found an allmusic bio, and another bio. They may not all be reliable, but if a quick Google search nets me these articles I think that there's definitely reliable information out there. Awsomaw (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Only someone unfamiliar with the goth–industrial subculture would contemplate deleting this; while they're no Sisters of Mercy or Nine Inch Nails, they're a well-known act in that scene, if a bit "classic". The problem for all such articles (bands with mostly pre-Internet popularity and influence, in a genre that's not a big seller like thrash metal or hip-hop and which peaked after the band's time, and mostly after the genre mutated toward industro-metal like Ministry/RevCo, Nine Inch Nails, and Rammstein) is that most RS coverage about them will be in paper sources, namely old music magazines, and mostly just European ones like NME and various that are not in English. The German article on the band seems to cite one that we're not using here at en.wiki yet, though I haven't looked it over. If someone has access to paper copies, Industrial Nation and other alt-rock mags of the late 1980s and early '90s would be about the best bets when it comes to US sources (though I guess it's vaguely possible they might have turned up in something more mainstream). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've done a total overhaul on it, translating the much better German article; also integrated its addl. source of course. Still needs much better sourcing, but I can't see anything in there that would be a controversial claim. Anyway, it's not even faintly plausible this band isn't notable, given how well known/influential it is in its genres (twice, as both Girls Under Glass and Trauma), with recording contracts under at least four names, carried on major (well, major for the genre) labels like Metropolis, with 10 studio albums and at least 5 greatest-hits anthologies, and a live album, and a live and documentary DVD, and who have headlined at Wave-Gotik-Treffen and Gotham [UK] Festival, and who've toured with The Neon Judgement, Fields of the Nephilim, Red Lorry Yellow Lorry, who have bands like Project Pitchfork open for them, who have multiple collaboration releases, [etc.]. This looks like it was a WP:IDONTKNOWIT nomination. All of that information was already in the super-ugly original article. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above work by SMcCandlish. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. SL93 (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Levellers (band). Whoever wants to do a merge can do it from the page history. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Sevink (Levellers)

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

No individual notability, the article is mostly about the band not the subject. There is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NM. Flooded with them hundreds 12:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Levellers (band). And do the same for other members Jeremy Cunningham, Matt Savage (Levellers), and Charlie Heather (Levellers). And then protect against reversion of the redirects. All four articles, including this one on Jonathan Sevink, have been redirected to the band in the past, but the person behind all of them, an editor named Slade121, has reverted the redirects without giving further evidence of independent notability for each guy outside the band. Also note that each of these articles briefly introduces each band member in the first paragraph, and then repeats a basic history of the band. So each individual member's article has no assertion of notability outside the band, and I can find no evidence of such. This pattern has already been noticed for yet another member, Simon Friend, who was subjected to this AfD in which the ultimate decision was the same as my recommendation here. Note that the individual article for yet another band member, Mark Chadwick (Levellers), probably qualifies for notability due to his solo work outside the band, but that article also has a repeat of the basic band history, which should be axed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to Levellers (band) - as the nominator says, the article is mostly about the band, not the individual musician. Vorbee (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At risk of repeating myself from above... Redirecting is easy, but so is reverting a redirect, and that has already been done multiple times for articles on various non-notable members of this band. If the result here is to redirect, there should also be some protection to keep things that way. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1980–81 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)

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

Per the discussion about 1960–1961 to 1979–80 schedules, as these articles have the same issues:

1981–82 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1982–83 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1983–84 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1984–85 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1985–86 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1986–87 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1987–88 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1988–89 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1989–90 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1990–91 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1991–92 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1992–93 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1993–94 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1994–95 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1995–96 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1997–98 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1998–99 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1999–2000 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2000–01 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2001–02 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)}}
2003–04 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2004–05 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2005–06 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2006–07 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2007–08 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2008–09 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2009–10 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010–11 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2011–12 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2012–13 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2013–14 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014–15 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2015–16 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2016–17 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2017–18 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2018–19 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Trivialist (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that this information will be useful for people, especially as a sort of archive record that could be helpful for researchers in the future. WillPeppers (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Less than ten sources with nearly 40 years of articles. The primetime schedules are well-sourced and justified, but here (and especially since 1997-98, when kids TV on broadcast began to die and by 2008, nobody under the age of 14 could muster any care for it any longer), there's few sources (and some of them are literal PR). TV encyclopedias already have this information, so it's still existent in book form. If you can source every one of these in the next seven days, be my guest, but otherwise, we're looking at information the category system and text in each show's article can cover much better. Nate • (chatter) 05:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: WP:NOTTVGUIDE says historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. The operative word is, of course, "may" — and the case can be made that such historical significance needs to be verifiably demonstrated in reliable sources. As it is, however, these schedules are all undersourced at best even in terms of the information itself (and some are unsourced entirely, and for years at that). Yes, these schedules can be potentially interesting and/or useful… but that doesn't necessarily mean they should be on Wikipedia, nor does that exempt them from our sourcing policies. (I'll note as well that should these articles be deleted, the navbox {{US TV schedule Saturday morning}} won't have much reason to exist.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per most recent AfD discussion covering all other articles. Unsourced (for 11 years), non-notable, not encyclopedic and fails WP:NOT. Ajf773 (talk) 10:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all fails WP:NOT. WP:USEFUL is not a good argument for keeping - lots of things are useful, not all of them are suitable for inclusion on Wiki. FOARP (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and in reply to ...such historical significance needs to be verifiably demonstrated in reliable sources... there are dozens of such sources listed/quoted in the Delrev for the last round of these AfDs. I don't want to spam this page with that long list of sources again, but there are scholarly works specifically discussing the historical significance of the scheduling of programming on Saturday mornings in the 1980s. For example, sources quoted in the delrev discuss the significance of Smurfs being on in the morning (and how that affected the development of news programs like Today). They contrast the lineups in the 1980s (filled with cartoons sponsored by toy companies selling toys) vs. the lineups at the same time in the 1990s (aimed at older children, tweens and teenagers, sponsored by clothing companies) vs. the lineups in the 21st century (tweens abandoned as a demographic because they don't watch TV on TV anymore, and instead focusing on adults).

If you read those quotes in the books and journals, you can then come look at the TV schedules linked above and see the actual lineups that the journals and books are discussing. You can see the counterprogramming, the lead-ins, the blocking, the tentpoling, and the change/development over time. This is an excellent reference. It has historical and encyclopedic value, and Wikipedia is a better place to have this information than anywhere else, because it's more likely to be accurate here. There are tons of reliable sources both to serve as a basis for the data, and to establish the notability of the data. It's a shame to delete it all.

Questions for those still not convinced: 1) Why is it important that they be deleted, what's the harm of leaving it? 2) If the sources posted thus far are insufficient, what sources would be sufficient to establish their notability/historical significance? What, written by whom, published where, would make the grade? Levivich (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scheduling =/= the schedule. Scheduling as a subject may well be notable and worthy of an article - in fact one already exists (Broadcast programming). Wikipedia is not a TV guide and there is no point at which the TV schedule as a whole itself (as opposed to the techniques behind television scheduling) becomes encyclopedic, any more than the notability of telephone directories in general makes the content of specifc telephone directories notable. There may be cases in which specific artifacts of the television schedule rise to the level of encyclopedic content (e.g., instances of programming going head-to-head in a notable ratings competition such as the Monday Night Wars) and in those cases an article is justified, but not the schedule as a whole which is just an indiscriminate collection of information. FOARP (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: Thank you for taking the time to reply. I understand what you're saying: scheduling is notable but not the schedule itself. I'm very new here and I cannot express how utterly confused I am about the difference between "indiscriminate collection of information" and a "discriminate" collection of information. Let me explain how I am looking at Wikipedia and maybe you or someone can help me see straight:

For example, on 1980–81_United_States_network_television_schedule_(Saturday_morning), every single show has its own article. Those articles include channels, release dates, etc. If I added airtime to those articles, sourced to TV Guide, wouldn't that be OK?
The_Tom_and_Jerry_Comedy_Show includes a list of episodes, and what day they aired. If I added the time of day, wouldn't that be OK?
There is an article about its production company Hanna-Barbera and a List of works produced by Hanna-Barbera Productions, which includes when they aired
So the list of works is OK; a list of episodes is OK; listing the release dates, channels and airtimes is OK; an article about scheduling techniques is OK; ...but a "TV schedule," i.e. a list of notable television shows and what time they air... is not OK? I hope you can see how this is confusing to a newcomer. Levivich (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - same issues as previous bunch. These articles are a collection of WP:NOTTVGUIDE (electronic program guides) with mostly no sources at all, and those which have source, are just a TV guide source. Levivich's sources are really good but they do not belong on these articles, but on an article that talks about the subject of United States Saturday morning network television schedule. As it stands, these articles have no sources (WP:V), no context (WP:N) and are just an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. --Gonnym (talk) 10:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym:, I have a question for you, and I'm not arguing with you, I only ask to avoid wasting my time (and yours). If I were to go through these articles and add sources – inline citations for every episode of every show, cited to Castleman, Harry and Podrazik, Walter J. (1984). The TV Schedule Book. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-010277-5., by page, or TV Guide, or local newspaper listings, or your source of choice... would that change your mind (or anyone else's)? I don't want to do the work if it's not going to matter in the end. But if it won't change your mind, then this isn't about lack of sources, right?

If I added a paragraph to the beginning of each article explaining (using sources from my delrev) the concepts of blocking, lead-in, counterprogramming, etc...if I added a summary paragraph about Saturday morning cartoons...If I added little summary blurb paragraphs summarizing each show... would that change our mind? I don't mind doing it but I don't want to waste my time. If it doesn't change your mind, then it's not about lack of context, right?
"Indiscriminate" means "done at random or without careful judgment." These television shows are organized by year, by time, by channel, and by season. So it's not random. It is only for the "Saturday morning cartoons" television block, only on the broadcast networks, and only lists notable TV shows...the time slot, networks, and shows all have their own articles. That seems like careful judgment in its selection and organization. How could it be better organized to be more discriminate and less indiscriminate?
Again I'm not trying to argue with you, but I don't want to add sources and explanatory paragraphs if it won't change anyone's mind anyway. Levivich (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still say it wouldn't help the article. Citing a TV guide that a show actually was on at that time is good for WP:V, but that does not mean that the 1975 Saturday morning TV shows was notable. Also, if you need to add the same exact lead paragraph to each article then again, creating an article for the subject of United States Saturday morning network television schedule and you can also add a List of United States Saturday morning network television programs - both of which are better suited than the current articles as they offer academic value and context. --Gonnym (talk) 07:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: Thanks for the response. I was wondering about List of United States Saturday morning network television programs: would it be deleted? If I included in the list what network it aired on, and what time, would either of those be deleted? I'm guessing based on your comment at the delrev that channel yes, time no.

The academics who study Saturday morning cartoons focus on what time they're on. For example: Studying programmes closely as single texts also has the disadvantage of separating a programme from its place in the schedule of the day in which it was broadcast...Selecting individual programmes for study means extracting them from the flow of material of which they are a part, and which might have important effects on their meaning... While each programme or ad might be interesting to analyse in itself, more meanings relating to speed, pollution, road safety or masculine bravado might arise because of the connections between the programmes and ads in this television flow. - An Introduction to Television Studies, London: Routledge. The author is saying you cannot understand a television show without understanding its broadcasting context–the "flow"–what comes before, what comes after, and what is on at the same time. It's important that Tom & Jerry precedes Bugs Bunny. It's an example of pairing and lead-in.

For example: This study investigated the effects of various programming strategies, commonly employed by the networks, on program popularity for children...Simple correlations supported the relationship between program popularity and the following programming strategies: counterprogramming by type, block programming by type, inheritance effects, starting time, program familiarity, and character familiarity. - "Programming Strategies and the Popularity of Television Programs for Children", Human Communication Research journal. The study factored in start time, counterprogramming (what else is on at the same time), and blocking (like, Might Mouse + Tom & Jerry + Bugs Bunny + Popeye).

My point being, an article about Tom & Jerry would and should include its airing time, what came before and after it, and what was on at the same time. A list of Saturday morning television shows should have the same information. If you rearrange that into a TV schedule, that's an improvement, and a legitimate resource for academic researchers, or at least it seems that way to me. Just as much a valuable part of an encyclopedia of human knowledge as a list of all the species of moths, or a list of all the episodes of Game of Thrones. Levivich (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom Spiderone 20:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I !voted "keep" in the previous AfD mainly as a result of procedural unfairness, and I am still extremely uncomfortable with both of User:Sandstein's closes – but especially the first one, as I wrote last time. Even if the reasoning is seemingly sound, AfD needs to run its course to evaluate community consensus properly, and short-circuiting the process causes huge problems. (As a side note, I have found most of Sandstein's closes to be more well-grounded than the average, so I do not think it is bias on my part.)

Now, with that out of the way... Many of User:Levivich's sources would indeed be excellent for a standalone article or three covering the topic in prose, as it seems has already been pointed out. But as much as I dislike the essay on Wikipedia:Bombardment when it comes to WP:V and WP:N, it most certainly is a salient point in terms of other policies. WP:NOTTVGUIDE (which itself is often interpreted over-broadly, but not in this case) is very clear that Wikipedia is no place for full-fledged TV schedules, and for very good reason: it may be great material for a database, but it makes for a mess of an encyclopedia.

In short, Levivich's hard work is unfortunately tangential to the simple fact that the existence of these tables violates WP:NOT in and of itself. (This energy would be far better spent on stopping and reversing the constant deletion of incredibly valuable material from Wikipedia by users selectively and wildly inappropriately invoking NOTTVGUIDE where it obviously does not apply, e.g. simple program listings on articles with little traffic and therefore virtually no editors to defend them.) Modernponderer (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep Michig (talk) 07:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elza Brandeisz

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

I'd love to be proven wrong on this one, but I'm really not seeing a full article here. That she had some significant interaction with some notable people is WP:NOTINHERITED, and the rest of the article is a bunch of nondescript details. There's WP:NOPAGE here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does being a Righteous Among the Nations count as "well-known and significant award or honor" for WP:ANYBIO? I'm leaning towards yes, but would be interested to hear more opinions about it. Atchom (talk) 05:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked into the Righteous Among the Nations]] situation. The hand out that award to anyone that can prove they belped safe Jews from the Holocast. There have been a lot of awards and getting one does not seem to ensure notability by our standards. Not like say a Nobel where all recipients have and get a lot of RS coverage. Legacypac (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think it's possible to merge at least some of this information in with pages like George Soros, Rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust, and/or List of Righteous Among the Nations by country. Obviously, you couldn't put the whole biography on these pages, but some of the information might be transferable. I also don't think being a member of the Righteous Among the Nations confers Wikipedia notability (according to the Wikipedia page, nearly 27,000 have received the distinction). I do think some of the information, particularly the fact that she sheltered George Soros, is worth saving on the encyclopedia, though. Gargleafg (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Gargleafg. I agree that the award Righteous Among the Nations does not confer notability on Wikipedia and this article fails WP:NOPAGE, but some information from this page does seem worth adding to at least the George Soros article and maybe others. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that she does meet WP:GNG, with the sources already in the article, the sources in German and Polish on those Wikipedia pages (and another in German on the French Wikipedia page), plus Tivadar Soros' book Masquerade: Dancing Around Death in Nazi-occupied Hungary and her entry in The Encyclopedia of the Righteous Among the Nations. ("They" do not "hand out that award to anyone that can prove they helped save Jews" - people have to be nominated by a Jewish party, and the help had to be repeated or substantial. The Nobel prize is a ridiculous standard to compare it to. As for how many have received it - how many state or federal politicians are in Wikipedia? how many sportspeople who have played at levels Wikipedia considers "notable"? etc etc) RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: German newspaper calls her "One of the pioneers of expressive dance in Hungary", and carries her obituary. Added to the rest, I think we have WP:GNG. Not just a run-of-the-mill supercentenarian. PamD 14:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RebeccaGreen and PamD. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a couple lines into the biography of George Soros. There are too many righteous among the nations for this award to confer notability by itself. At first, it sounds more logical to include her into the Rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust, but most people listed there are documented for having saved thousands of people. Ms. Brandeisz saved a few people, an admirable gesture, but not especially notable. She received most of her media coverage due to the coincidence that she rescued a young Soros, hence that is the best merge target. There is otherwise WP:NOPAGE. — JFG ^talk 10:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She seems notable if you ask me ThatBaileyLad (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be covered in multiple notable sources as the main subject, per RebeccaGreen. Anything else is applying a higher standard than our actual notability policy. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 20:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if this lady were not a supercentenarian, there would be no doubts about this page. It is unreasonable to demand higher standards of supercentenarians (who are far from 'run-of-the-mill). Oculi (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO. I have added more refs and corrected information in the article. Yoninah (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 07:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huang Mulan

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Time for another AfD. Despite the bombastic claims in this article and the promise of forthcoming sources, they remain entirely lacking. To the extent this may be because of her nationality, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs about what reliable sources do and don't cover. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huang Mulan participants: Shadowowl (talk · contribs), Oakshade (talk · contribs), and Simonm223 (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Last AfD's conclusion was Keep, and I can't see that anything has changed enough to alter the previous consensus. She has received significant coverage in English-language Chinese media, and at least one full-length biography in Chinese. (Also, the dead links work for me). Atchom (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is none of the information in this article cited to these seemingly great sources? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean autobiography - see below on the reliableness of these sources. Legacypac (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the last AfD was so recent, there's no change in opinion so I'll repeat what I typed there; The All-China Women's Federation, Vision China Times, Yibada and GBTimes have extensive coverage of this person.[12][13][14][15]. The Journal of Modern Chinese History gave an extensive review of her autobiography as well as extensive biographical information.[16] And these are all just English language sources. Most certainly much more exists in Chinese. The nom needs to learn the basic tenants of Wikipedia:Notability. As WP:NEXIST states, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. If there's an issue of a controversial statement in the article that you believe needs sourcing, consider placing a citation-needed tag at the specific content.Oakshade (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As the article stands I'd have to tag almost every sentence with it, which would be obviously disruptive. If these sources actually support the information in the article, then we're talking, but as of now they don't. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to change WP:NOTABILITY to ignore the existence of in-depth coverage demonstrating passing WP:N and only go by the coverage that's placed in an article at the time of an Afd, then you'd have to make your case on WP:N's talk page, not try to push a new agenda in a single AfD.Oakshade (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in this article is verified. Her autobiography is exactly that - unverified and according to the Amazon write up, pretty fantastical. It appears like major life details were disputed for decades (maybe still) by offical sources. The Amazon write up disagrees with the two Woman in China page in significant details like her marriage(s), kids etc. The WIC source is pure propaganda and basically screams unreliable. Just look at some of the other stories there like [17] Without a real reliable source thos has to be removed. Legacypac (talk) 06:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because an Amazon publicity piece on a book disagrees with the one of the extensive coverages that exist of this person? What does this have to do with WP:NOTABILITY?Oakshade (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the references may be propaganda, but that someone is notable enough for the CPC to propagandize about is itself an indicator of notability. If we were to write articles about modern Chinee people without reference to that kind of sources we wouldn't have much left. Atchom (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't see the problem with sourcing an encyclopedia article to propaganda, I really don't know what else to say. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who is an administrator, you seem to be curiously unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. First of all, dismissing Chinese official sources as "propaganda" is simplistic and POV. Secondly, even if they were propaganda, government sources are still considered reliable for factual information, see WP:BIASEDSOURCES. If you read academic writings such as The Cambridge History of China, they source enormous amounts of "propaganda". -Zanhe (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I write about this stuff on an academic basis. I'm well aware of what's propaganda and what's not. The fact is you simply cannot write about modern PRC history without using loads of CPC "propaganda". To take a very basic example, there aren't any non-PRC government sources about the biographical backgrounds of most of the top Chinese leadership, but we can't simply not write about those people. Read some modern academic literature on Chinese politics if you don't believe me. Atchom (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that being old is notable and nothing in the article is sourced, let alone sourced to independent reliable sources. I also agree with Legacypac's analysis of the autobiography and WIC as sources. Neither constitute a WP:RS as far as I can tell either, and should be disregarded. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my first nomination of this article. » Shadowowl | talk 09:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - article is poorly written but it's simply ridiculous to question her notability. I'm familiar with the subject and have written several articles of early Communist Chinese spies (see Qian Zhuangfei, Li Qiang, Hu Di). Huang Mulan was one of Chinese Communist Party's most famous spies, highly praised by Premier Zhou Enlai for alerting party members of the defection of the Party head Xiang Zhongfa and saving the life of Politburo member Guan Xiangying. A Google search of her Chinese name yields more than 1500 books and more than 100,000 web pages, including numerous articles from mainstream media. Not only is her autobiography published by an academic publisher, it caused such a stir that it was reviewed by the Journal of Modern Chinese History, and elicited much debate in Chinese media, see Phoenix News. Guo Moruo, perhaps the most influential modern Chinese scholar, wrote a major novel based on her life, which has been adapted into multiple television dramas, see Xinhua. -Zanhe (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [18] confirms she was a real person and is "notable". Quote from the article: ’ This book reviews the heroine’s life and her dedication to the revolution in the past 100 years, and it is indeed worth reading. ZHOU Bin (周斌), Institute of Modern History, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing--Jirangmoon (talk) 11:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above, meets GNG even if most sources are in Chinese. There is an article in zh-wiki about her (黄慕兰) which I tried to link under Languages, with no success. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added some references that talk about her life in depth, supporting several claims made in the story. There is plenty of material in links given by Oakshade above to demonstrate notability and improve article further. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange: I've added the language link by merging the two separate wikidata records. -Zanhe (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep We've been over this quite recently and she's notable regardless of article quality. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO as laid out by Zanhe. Adding Chinese sources would certainly improve article quality. In the meantime, AfD is not cleanup. — JFG ^talk 10:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Zanhe. Julia Kinsley (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC) — Julia Kinsley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note Julia Kinsley has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Into the Rift CommanderLinx (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep We've been over this quite recently and she's notable regardless of article quality. Meets WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before, which sets forth an agenda and conditions precedent to doing a WP:AFD. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. 74.50.209.241 (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC) — 74.50.209.241 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. 71.161.239.237 (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)— 71.161.239.237 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. Michig (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zeenat Bi

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

Non notable longevity claim. The lack of sources says it all, it's a wonder this has been around so long. WP:NOPAGE The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Zeenat Bi has Government pension records stating she is 101 - but she insists she is twelve years older." says it all. Interesting that did not make it into this article. Legacypac (talk) 07:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's only a smattering of sources that popped up in 2012 and a couple after that. Not notable. Gargleafg (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Ridiculous yet funny. Obviously fails GNG or ANYBIO. — JFG ^talk 08:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a complete joke that fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 19:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete true problems with sourcing the claim, and even if true not enough to make notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One of those who were known only for claiming themselves to be oldest or very old. These subjects lack significant coverage especially when we take their extraordinary claims into account. This is similar to other recently nominated articles. Rzvas (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Big Brother 13 housemates (UK)#Luke A. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Anderson

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

Fails WP:ENT. He won a reality show 6 years ago and has done nothing since. I would suggest either deleting or redirecting to List of Big Brother 13 housemates (UK)#Luke A 5 albert square (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list entry. Not every winner has an article as they do not always go on to be notable outside of the show. The list entry actually has more information as well! — ᴀnemone ᴘroᴊecтors 07:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list entry per above. Gargleafg (talk) 08:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Ang

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

This article is about a person who has received some minor PR over the years, but who to my eye does not appear notable. The article seems to have been added by a user with COI (note - that is not strictly relevant to the AfD issue, but I mention it since I have mercilessly shorn the article of a lot of uncited assertions and peacockery - AfD discussion participants might want to look at the article history when weighing it in the balance). Tagishsimon (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:APPNOTE, I have informed user:Noq of this AfD, since that user had previously PROD'd this article; and user:Comatmebro, who made some early constructive amendments to the article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looked into the subject to see if I could find some reliable secondary sources. Wasn't particularly impressed so I have to say I agree with the delete. Comatmebro (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found in the article or elsewhere that would meet WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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