Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 November	20 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Firm consensus that there is plenty of sourcing to satisfy notability, which between that and the Swedish Wiki article could allow for significant article enhancement is any editor so chooses (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karlatornet

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

It's a very short article which it clearly does not meet the WP:GNG, plus it is unsourced. Sheldybett (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Someone with the requisite language skills should check out the equivalent Swedish Wikipedia article. This might help identify new sources. BenKuykendall (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is in a sorry state, but the building meets WP:GNG. A quick WP:BEFORE would have shown that there is significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources and when completed the building will be the highest in the Nordic countries. To show the variety of sources: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. Sjö (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Per Sjö, who found many sources, and there are innumerable others as well, none of which, it seems, are in English. We don't limit ourself to sources in any one language, which is why this AfD is yet another example of WP:BIAS. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as this wont be finished for a few years i was concerned that the numerous available sources may have been routine/PR and it may have been WP:TOOSOON, even then i would have thought a redirect to Gothenburg or the architects (Skidmore, Owings & Merrill) would have been appropriate, i am now assured by Sjö above that they arent, so this is a keep from me as meeting WP:GNG. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Göteborgs-Posten, which is the source in many of the ~~links given by Sjö above~~ references in the Swedish article, is the leading newspaper in western Sweden. This has plenty of non-routine coverage – for good reason. I have added at least one of the articles as a reference in the article. /Julle (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability as demonstrated by User:Sjö. --1l2l3k (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. --Doncram (talk) 06:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources brought by Sjö.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:57, 26 November 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 12:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roodeplaat Research Laboratories

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

No indication of notability Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A UN report (now referenced into the article) features around 30 pages on this front company and its activities. However, I'm undecided whether this and other such front companies (e.g. Delta G Scientific Company) merit individual articles rather than redirects to the Project Coast of which they were engineered to provide covert fronts. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- First of all, "no indication of notability" is not even a deletion criterion. We decide notability on the basis of sources in the world, not on the basis of sources in the article. And there are plenty of sources in the world for this subject. Here are a few:
- Eric Croddy; James J. Wirtz (2005). Weapons of Mass Destruction: An Encyclopedia of Worldwide Policy, Technology, and History. ABC-CLIO. pp. 267–. ISBN 978-1-85109-490-5.
- Helen E. Purkitt; Stephen Franklin Burgess (2005). South Africa's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Indiana University Press. pp. 153–. ISBN 0-253-21730-X.
- Lentzos Filippa (13 July 2016). Biological Threats In The 21st Century: The Politics, People, Science And Historical Roots. World Scientific. pp. 139–. ISBN 978-1-78326-949-5.
- And so on and on and on. A clear pass of GNG and a clear failure of BEFORE. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for opinions on the sources the IP user posted
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- Agreed with AllyD that the article does not merit an individual article. UN report may be a sufficient source for the information to be included within the broader Project Coast article, but it is not enough to justify an individual article. A search for the article topic turns up only a few sources with questionable reliability. There are several other articles: (e.g. Lema (company) and Delta G Scientific Company) that are merely lists of the same front organizations associated with Project Coast, and are lacking in sufficient reliable sources. Keeping Roodeplaat Research Laboratories article as it stands currently only perpetuates this issue. Propose redirecting this article to Project Coast, and reincorporating notable, reliably sourced info into that article. GroundFloor (talk) 14:55, 21 November 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 to delete the article was established; a future merge, can, of course, still be discussed on the relevant talk page. (non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 16:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Frame

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

Fails WP:GNG TheLongTone (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject is the brother of a far more notable dancer–all of the reliable source coverage is about the brother Peter, with barely mere mentions for Paul. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ WP:HEY I added some Jennifer Dunning reviews from the New York Times archives. Not of Peter, of Paul. also added a detailed 2009 profile of Paul's life and career in the Arizona Republic, He keeps troupe on pain-free toes. I think that there is now enough here to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject is a former company member of the New York City Ballet and is now the resident chiropractor at Ballet Arizona. I think that warrants some notability. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
note also that the twin thing has gotten them into several books, including Dancers!: horizons in American dance,Ellen Eichenwald Switzer, Atheneum, 1982. ("Peter Frame has the body of a high school athlete and the face of a model for ski clothes... His brother Paul is his identical twin... and even those who know the two young men well often find it difficult to tell them apart.") . But mostly it's the Jennifer Dunning reviews and the long profile int the Arizona Republic that do it for me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with User:Rosguill's findings. Deb (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please encounter the detailed profile of Paul in the The Arizona Republic, and the Jennifer Dunning reviews that are about Paul, not the more famous brother. Rosegill's assertion that "all of the reliable source coverage is about the brother Peter, with barely mere mentions for Paul." was flat wrong, and should there fore not be cited without encountering sources brought (added to page,) after he made his comment. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. For a start I can't access the Arizona Republic article, but "He keeps troupe on pain-free toes" doesn't exactly sound like the cue for an article that represents "significant coverage". The Jennifer Dunning review mentions him only once in passing, and also mentions practically every other member of the troupe, most of whom do not have Wikipedia articles - that's certainly not significant coverage. So I still agree with User:Rosguill.Deb (talk) 11:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added 3 Denning reviews to the page. The Arizona Republic article is a long profile of his life, career, and medical work with ballet company. Nor are these the only sources. Books, and news articles have been covering the "twin dancers" angle for years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All much in the same vein, unfortunately. I'm not opposed to you continuing to add references and trying to bring it up to a generally-accepted standard of notability. Deb (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"much in the same vein" do you mean by this that a pair of twins danced with America's leading ballet company? that notable people like Kathryn Abbe and Frances McLaughlin-Gill found this worthe recording? that they got covered as dancers and twins year after year? As dancers, as twins, even if it is "much in the same vein', when covearge goes on for a lifetime, it does make you notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Twins on Twins Hardcover; 1981 book by Julie Szekely, with photos by Kathryn McLaughlin Abbe and Frances McLaughlin-Gill, has a section on the Frame twins. It was published by Clarkson Potter two years before Peter became a soloist, the brothers were both members of the company of the New York City Ballet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, expanded his bio from material in the profile in the Arizona Republic, noting that a feature story,profile in a major daily paper cannot be dismissed simply because it is behind a paywall. Added a 2nd article Arizona Republic article covering his medical role with the Arizona Ballet. Note Dancing with the New York City ballet for a decade is a significant achievement. Plus the book, Editors above argue that that "all of the reliable source coverage is about the brother Peter, with barely mere mentions for Paul." I searched, and I found sources that disprove this assertion. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a 1981 (i.e. before his twin became a soloist,) article in Newsweek of which I can only view this snippet: "The double-twinned Richmonds, the dancing Frame brothers." it appears to the the title of an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article from the Arizona Daily is valuable, though it is the only real SIGCOV of Frame we have. Search through ProQuest reveals some routine coverage in The New York Times of ballets he appeared in but not much else. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is more, including multiple books published before the dance career of the other twin took off, one of them [10], which I described above is by two bluelinked photographers. I am making a cumulative argument. Notability in youth for being a twin. Reviews that specifically cover his individual dancing, albeit briefly. Coverage in the regional daily of his post-dancing career as a chiropractor, who works caring for dancers. And, sadly, some discussion of his career in the obituaries of his more notable twin.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to ~~Paul Frame~~. Suggest that article creator User:Willthacheerleader18 migkt like to selectively MERGE some of the sources to the article on the more notable twin.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Did you mean merge to Peter Frame? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Merge and redirect to Peter Frame. The closer I looked the less SIG the sources looked. for example, the book with photos by Kathryn McLaughlin Abbe and Frances McLaughlin-Gill, was a 2-page photo spread. and other sources are similarly brief, sole exceptions are the 3 brief individual glowing mentions by the dance reviewer for the New York Times and a profile in The Arizona Republic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 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) 22:51, 19 November 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 12:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swipe Right

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

Non-notable play Polyamorph (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The play is notable and is expected to be mounted again soon. The content is verifable through the official site and reviews. Addressed issue with redirect by adding Hatnote for previously redirected page, Sideswiped_(TV_series) - Wilkinscj' (talk) - November 19, 22:44 (UTC)

If is is notable then you should be able to demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources. I cannot see this has been achieved aside from an article in a local publication "Kelowna Capital News" which does not represent significant coverage. Polyamorph (talk) 09:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, needs more indepth sources, also appears to be WP:TOOSOON from above comment (also, appears to have been created by the playwright, doesnt in itself preclude an article but see WP:COI). Coolabahapple (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While Kelowna is a lovely little town, it is not exactly a mecca for theater. As Cassiopeia points out, it might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but at this point it clearly does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note it was Coolabahapple who pointed to WP:TOOSOON, Cassiopeia added the Delsort notice Polyamorph (talk) 17:03, 20 November 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 05:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Rothschild

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

Fails WP:PEOPLE. I quote: "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be 'worthy of notice' or 'note'—that is, 'remarkable' or 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded' within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life." Bishonen | talk 22:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. The sources comprise a press release written by a promoter, an entry at Companies House, a staff list at a University website, and a couple of dead links that I've been unable to resurrect. I've got more significant coverage in independent sources than he has, and I'm about as unnotable as it's possible to be. --RexxS (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not satisfied. The links show nothing useful and searches show more of the same. I can't tell if the article was created as a promotion or an attack ("Reports Of Misrepresentation") but neither would be useful. Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can’t be bothered to search the history to see if this page is an attack or vanity, but either ways, it is non notable and of interest to no one.Giano (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to have originally created as a promotional article (the original editor never edited again, after having created two articles - which is practically the modus operandi of many paid editors of the era). Notability not satisfied, fails GNG. Risker (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --1l2l3k (talk) 21:46, 23 November 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 12:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Scott Cummins

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

No coverage in reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NACTOR. Previously deleted by AfD with the closer requesting that CSD not be used against recreated articles, which also disqualifies it for PROD. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and comment: He did appeared in some notable films and he has a recurring role in Bosch. While the majority of his roles in notable films were smaller, his role in Bosch is a major recurring one. While this article needs major expanding and reliable sources for sure, I don't think this article needs to be deleted. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets criteria #1 of WP:NACTOR with significant roles in both It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia (see Deadline and this cast interview in The Hollywood Reporter for example) and Bosch. The previous AfD was in 2012, well before his recurring role in Bosch.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 07:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the keep votes but in a different way, keep the article but as a draft. If not kept in that way, delete. I agree with keep votes that he is not entirely non notable, but There are still two facts: 1) he "barely" passes or even depending on what your thoughts are on Sunny role he had, fails WP:NACTOR because he needs multiple significant roles in notable shows or movies(film roles are all minor, Sunny role where he appeared in a guest 7 episodes role only (which I do not consider that notable) apart from the bigger Bosch recurring role there is not much yet) and 2) references wise, I am unable to find a significant coverage from reliable sources that are not just passing mentions. I feel like he could still be in the WP:TOOSOON domain. He may be notable in the future but not now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject's own website and IMDb do not add up to reliable sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment John Pack Lambert, I added a couple of references that I had noted above into the article, that way if it's draftified there will be reliable sources to work with.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per John Pack Lambert. The role in Bosch is not a "significant" one. Fails GNG too, and there's very little out there that we could realistically use to build an article. — Amakuru (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ponyo; clearly passes NACTOR (there seems to be a misunderstanding that "significant roles"=leading roles only); furthermore—reference the previous AfD, I note that the closer was also was almost swayed by some of the "keep" arguments. The subject's notability has increased, rather than decreased, since then. ——SerialNumber54129 12:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's no misunderstanding. The roles he has held, leading or otherwise, are not significant. If they were, there would be some independent 3rd party coverage of the guy, which there clearly isn't. — Amakuru (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am withdrawing my vote. I don't really agree that guest roles are significant nor that he clearly passes WP:NACTOR (a short guest role on Sunny is just not significant even if you do count Bosch one as such), but since its such a borderline case, I am stepping back. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:24, 25 November 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 12:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recycle Track Systems

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

An advertorially toned page on a private business; significant RS coverage not found. Has been previously deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recycle Track Systems. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as (repeated) unambiguous WP:PROMO, aggravated by apparent disregard for previous community consensus. Bakazaka (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag: yes poorly written and reads like an advert, however it looks very well sourced from a range of different independent sources which suggests it is more than routine. Previous discussion was not much of a discussion at all as only 1 person commented. With some improvement tags may and a slight rewrite in tone it could be an ok article. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment: also a quick Google search reveals Forbes and CNBC wrote about them [11] [12] so I don't think it is just a standard case of self-promotion, passes WP:GNG for me Abcmaxx (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes piece is an interview with the CEO, with regurgitated PR as lead-in. The CNBC piece is from a college student "contributor" and is built around PR text and images. That's not good enough to pass WP:NCORP, even if the WP:PROMO policy violation is ignored. Bakazaka (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: about CNBC authorship: it doesn't matter if the author is a college student; the piece has to pass CNBC editorial review. It's not a blog posting. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend keep The deletion nomination is predicated on 'advertorial tone' and 'lack of reliable sources'. The first is an editing issue; the second is false. There also seems to be a presumption that something deleted via AfD should stay deleted. There are remedies for this: WP:SALT, Speedy deletion, blocking of authors ... though these are pretty heavy hammers and don't seem appropriate in this case. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the blizzard of references, I don't see anything that makes this meet WP:NCORP. WP:THREE applies. If I had run across this on my own, I might have deleted it under WP:G11. List of customers, lists of dubious awards, lists of things they've done to make an impact? That's not an encyclopedia article, that's a PR piece. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:00, 19 November 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 12:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelic Society of Moscow

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

Non notable organisation. Of the references, 1, 3, and 4 are not independent, 2 is dead, and 5 is not a reliable source. Catrìona (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Lack of sources found. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 20:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. Szzuk (talk) 19:28, 26 November 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 12:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

W. Roy Smythe

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

Lack of notability and reliable sources to warrant the subject his own article. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 20:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Vanity autobiography; fails WP:GNG. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No indication of Wikipedia notability per WP:BIO or WP:GNG, and the creator of the article and one of its main contributors is Smythe3; so, this might've been an attempt to create WP:AUTOBIO. The article seems to have slipped by unnoticed for the most part until it started to attract attention due to WP:THQ#Self-promotional autobiographical article. Even though it's been trimmed quite a bit over the past day or so, there also don't seem to be any possiblities of merging or redirecting this; so, I can't see any real benefit of keeping it without some better indication of Wikipedia notability at first glance.
Having posted that, it does appear that Smythe (or someone also named W. Roy Smythe) has written a number of articles for Discover (magazine) as shown here and also contributed to Encyclopædia Britannica (see here), and as been published in Chest (journal) (see here) as well as some other peer-reviewed journals like American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology (see here) and The Annals of Thoracic Surgery (see here), etc.; so, there might actually be something for someone familiar with these types of articles to work with to create at least a viable stub per WP:ACADEMIC by keeping control of the WP:APPARENTCOI editing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In line with the points made by Marchjuly above it does appear that Smythe is probably notable as per WP:PROF for a number of reasons, including high citation counts on his academic papers and former position as Roney Endowed Chair and Professor of Surgery, Medicine and Molecular Medicine at the Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine (see here). He has also just been named CEO of SomaLogic, [13] which may contribute to notability through other guidelines. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:54, 22 November 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)} 15:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Koohiar Peik

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

Autobiography which fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure self-promotion that has no in-depth or reliable sources. Simply fails notability guidelines. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional and heavy use of references that fail WP:RS. --JAMillerKC (talk) 20:23, 21 November 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 12:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Campaner

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

I was going to remove the unsourced content from this article but discovered that it is essentially unsourced. Checking online, I found nothing. I don't think she meets our notability requirements as listed at WP:MUSICBIO for this reason. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article states that she has won prizes at major international competitions, and Criterion 9 of is: WP:MUSICBIO Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition. So she does meet WP:MUSICBIO. Sources can be found online - eg re the Paderewski Competition this [14] or this [15], her profile on the Borletti-Buitoni Trust, from which she won a £20,000 fellowship in 2014 [16], possibly this interview in Avvenire [17] (I don't know what constitutes reliable sources in Italy) - and there are other articles, like this one about her becoming artistic director of a musical association [18], and I'm sure it would be possible to find reviews of performances, particularly searching in Italian, Greek, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There are enough sources which show non in passing coverage online plus the awards as mentioned above that I feel ok voting keep but this cuts pretty thin. JC7V-talk 19:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:27, 19 November 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. After two relists, opinions are still split between deleting, redirecting, merging and keeping. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dexter's Laboratory characters

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

The reference tag is incorrect--there are no references at all on this page. The main article adequately sums up any relevant and noteworthy information in this article. The contents of this article would be more welcome on a Wikia page, but not WP. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 09:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question are recurring/secondary characters not enough to warrant a character page? They obviously have smaller roles than the main 5, who I can imagine being adequately covered in main page, but I don't know how the others could be sufficiently addressed there if not here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact they are recurring/secondary characters usually means they do not have the coverage necessary to cover them outside the plot of the series (which is captured on the lists of episodes). It's one of my rules of thumb that where a list of characters includes these kinds, that they should probably be removed, barring someone showing up with reliable independent sources to indicate their significance. --Izno (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "main 5" characters (Dexter, Dee Dee, Mom, Dad, and Mandark) are indeed adequately covered in the parent article's premise section. In fact, the section includes specific information, such as the quotes about Dexter's accent, that the character list peculiarly does not. Monkey and The Justice Friends group, who both have their own series-within-a-series segments, are also described in the main article's premise section. Other secondary characters are very minor, only showing up in a handful of episodes or filler segments. Their notability does not extend past the episodes they are featured in. To answer your question, no. Having secondary characters in a TV series does not itself justify the existence of a separate character list article. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 09:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'll have to oppose this. There is some misunderstanding of how notability relates to list articles. Per Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists: The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. I agree that the article should be sourced, and I'm highly skeptical that there is not even one source that talks about characters from this series which received widespread critical acclaim and high ratings, and became one of Cartoon Network's most popular original series (according to the lead int he parent article). I'll even say that the lead article does a bad job in presenting the characters, I was looking at the ToC and it isn't even mentioned there. Also, creating redirects to specific entries in that prose is impossible, so linking to characters is meaningless. --Gonnym (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are right to be skeptical based on the main article's prose, but extensive research I've done in Internet and print media has turned up with very little or nothing at all regarding characters exclusive to the character list, who are minor and insignificant. The sources in the main article were the best I could come up with when I nominated it for GA in 2013, and nothing has really changed since then. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 08:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAF is important here. Lists of non-fictional entities have a mostly-different bar to meet than lists of fictional entities. Almost always, lists of fictional entities devolve into WP:NOTPLOT violations. Here's my favorite example (which was actually worse even before that because there was a "list of minor characters" hanging around); here's that same article today. --Izno (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Dexter's Laboratory. The current article here does not justify a stand-alone article. Now, there's likely to be "push-back" against creating a 'Characters' section at Dexter's Laboratory, because it's a WP:GA, but that's a truly lousy excuse. In fact, it's a pet peeve of mine that it's somehow concluded that WP:TV GA's "shouldn't have" a 'Cast' or 'Characters' section – that's total bunk. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as appropriate to give correct WP:WEIGHT to the topic matter. Likely, that means a simple redirect but may indicate some partial merging. --Izno (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources = no article, per WP:V. Sandstein 12:31, 27 November 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 12:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Melville Smith

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

Poorly sourced biography of a former deputy minister of a government department. "Deputy minister" is a civil service role, not a "cabinet member in the legislature" role, so it could get him an article if he could be shown to have enough reliable source coverage about him to clear WP:GNG, but is not an automatic inclusion freebie that guarantees him an article just because he existed -- but the only source here is a list of the past deputy ministers on the government department's own self-published website, which is not a notability-supporting source for its own staff as it's not independent of them. As always, people clear our notability standards by having media do journalism about them, not just by being named on their own employer's website. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A deputy minister is clearly notable enough for an article. Appears to have been the senior civil servant in the department. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, a deputy minister is not automatically notable in the absence of any reliable source coverage about him — no matter how senior he was, he still does not get an automatic notability freebie just because the ministry's own self-published website about itself offers technical verification that he existed, and is not notable until media start covering him in that context. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion clearly differs. And you're not going to get much media about someone who held office in the 1930s and 1940s! Today someone in his position in a developed country would be all over the internet. Hardly then. I have no idea why you keep banging on about the website being "self-published". So what? Official websites are reliable sources for information. Nobody is saying that his inclusion on it is relevant for notability purposes. It merely confirms (reliably!) that he held a position that common sense would dictate is senior enough to grant notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't have a requirement that article sources be online, or that the media coverage be recent enough to find in a Google News search — news archiving databases very easily show whether media coverage from his own time existed or not, so people are not exempted from having to pass GNG just because the notability claim is old enough to not find current coverage. And the reason I keep "banging on" about the website being "self-published" is that I'm correct about how notability works on Wikipedia: people are not handed an automatic notability freebie that would exempt them from having to have any coverage in reliable sources that are independent of them just because their names happen to appear on the websites of their own employers. The role is not so "inherently" notable that the need to have an article about him would override the inability to source it to more than just one piece of technical verification that he existed. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You miss my point. Internet sources for current figures are always going to be more widespread than print sources for historical figures because it's much easier to write something on the internet than publish it on paper. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Weak keep -- An official source from a western government ought to be treated as RS, but all it does is to name him as deputy minister. That is likely to be true, but does not fully source the article. I do not know, but even if he was the head civil servant in a provincial department of state, I would have thought he was notable. The problem is finding sources is probably that many will call him R.M. Smith or Robert Smith, which are such common names that searches will be swamped with false positives. Is there a Canadian Dictionary of Biography or an on-line archive of Canadian newspapers to provide sources? However the lack of sources is not a ground for deletion, where there is no clear evidence that the content is likely to be false. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep unsourceable articles just because the content is "unlikely" to be false, or even just because other sources might exist that nobody has actually found — the notability test is not passed just by speculating that media coverage might have existed, it's passed by showing that media coverage did exist. And the commonness of his name doesn't exempt people from having to actually find sources, either — all you have to do to manage the signal to noise ratio is search "[Robert / R.M. / Robert Melville] Smith Department of Highways" instead of just his name in isolation, because by definition any coverage which helps to make him notable for that role would have to mention that role. I've already checked the Dictionary of Canadian Biography, and I've already checked archives of Canadian newspapers — but he isn't in the DoCB at all, and in the newspapers literally the only thing I was able to find is a single glancing namecheck of his existence in an article that wasn't otherwise about him, at a time when he wasn't even the deputy minister but merely a staff engineer. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES "Sub-cabinet officials (assistant secretary, commissioner, etc.) are usually considered notable, especially if they have had otherwise notable careers." - I agree that with a WP:V fail that would not be sufficient, however a google book search on the full name + Ontario does have a number of hits, including - this on an award he received - which does allow us to verify the contents of the present article. I would assume additional sources exist, yet the name does make searching here difficult. Icewhiz (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as creator. While I agree that normally this role wouldn't merit an article, this man invented the North American freeway. The article could be fleshed out more, but that's not a reason for deleting. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. He didn't. Good faith on article creator's part, but the source is mistaken, "first" claims are often mistaken. Take a look at Controlled-access highway#history.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well yeah, he did, and I have three books that attribute it to him. From Controlled-access highway (which admittedly I had a large part in): "In Canada, the first precursor with semi-controlled access was The Middle Road between Hamilton and Toronto, which featured a median divider between opposing traffic flow, as well as the nations first cloverleaf interchange. This highway developed into the Queen Elizabeth Way, which featured a cloverleaf and trumpet interchange when it opened in 1937, and until the Second World War, boasted the longest illuminated stretch of roadway built.[13] A decade later, the first section of Highway 401 was opened, based on earlier designs. It has since gone on to become the busiest highway in the world." - Now look at QEW or Highway 401 and repeat that statement on 2 featured articles about how he didn't bring the concept from Germany to North America. Admittedly, CAH doesn't mention him. I suggest reading The Middle Road. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First, while deputy ministers can be notable, deputy ministers are not automatically notable under WP:NPOL but must pass WP:GNG. Second, having reviewed all of the sources, this fails WP:GNG. I've done a Google Books search, a Newspapers.com search, and a couple other searches and very little of the coverage of him is significant. There is a book showing he did win an award for the development of Canada, but it's scarcely significant coverage. Of the sources in the article, one just names him as the deputy minister, and the other is the source that lists the medal which Icewhiz helpfully added above. I understand a WP:NEXIST argument in a historical context, but he's apparently not listed in this book at all (could this be an OCR issue?) [19] though he is apparently mentioned in this book [20] (@Bearcat:, do you know if Boston Mills Press is a reliable publisher?), and newspapers.com brings up very little (perhaps its Canadian coverage isn't decent?). SportingFlyer talk 02:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've got access to the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail going back to the 1890s, I can see if I can turn up something from the 30s. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Floydian, if you have three books that describe his role in building the first North American freeway, could you add those references, and perhaps more information about it, to the article? The information about him receiving the Julian C. Smith Medal from the Engineering Institute of Canada for “Achievement in the Development of Canada” could be added too. I would not expect to find civil servants mentioned at great length in newspapers - it's usually the minister who takes credit for things, and gets press coverage on trips. But a later study of the work of a government department could show how significant a role the deputy minister played. It would be good to see those references, which might well prove his notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:48, 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) 18:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been finding articles, but mostly press releases (the deputy tended to be the public speaker). Books I've only got "Footpaths to Freeways" and "QEW - Canada's First Superhighway", both deemed reliable on several FA's. The newspapers are hard to search in the 30's, given he is "R. M. Smith", "Robert M. Smith", "R.M. Smith", "Robert Melville Smith", "Robert Mellville Smith", etc. depending on the writer. However, the medal should be easier to find. I'll start combing. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete extraordinary claims require adequate sourcing, and the sourcing here does not support assertions about Smith's key role as a central figure in transportation development.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found and added references to this article. My understanding is that notability is meant to be determined on the existence of sources, not their inclusion in the article. However, there are now more references, as well as more information. I believe that he meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the new sources I'm a bit confused - is the R. Melville Smith company, which worked out in Dawson during the mid-1940's, related to the person, who worked a government job and retired to Toronto out of ill health in 1943? There is another source saying the company was based out of Toronto ([21]). Which are the best three sources which definitively show notability? SportingFlyer talk 12:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Answer The 1943 Edmonton Journal article[22] and the book The Alaska Highway in World War II: The U.S. Army of Occupation in Canada's Northwest[23] (p 55) are two of the sources that state that the R. Melville Smith company was run by the deputy minister of highways. (I guess things were different then - that would be a major conflict of interest for a civil servant now!) I think the Engineering Journal[24] citation for the prize is one of the best sources that show notability. (I'm aware that you have already seen this, though.) I do not have access to the two books, From Footpaths to Freeways and QEW – Canada's First Superhighway, which Floydian has, and has said state that Robert Melville Smith was the originator of the divided highway concept. I have posted on Floydian's talk page asking for the exact reference. (PS: You noted above that From Footpaths to Freeways on google shows no results for Robert Melville Smith. I think this may be because some pages are blanked out and not visible to the search - at least, if Floydian is right that he is in the book, it's the only explanation I can think of.) Hope that's some help. (And if this article isn't deleted, help editing it to clear up confusion would be very welcome!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Also found this[25] which provides some extra details. RM Smith didn't originate it, he brought the Autobahn concept after visiting Germany back to Ontario, and applied it to build the QEW, which is debatably the first intercity divided highway in North America (though the Pennsylvania Turnpike tends to share that honour). The article should certainly clarify that moving forward. I'll dig out that book and find the page number after work RebeccaGreen, although you may be able to find it in The Middle Road article. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Sorry, I meant originate in Canada, though I realise that's not really originating! That's a useful source for the Canada Culvert Co. I did look at the Middle Road and QEW articles for page numbers, but I don't think I found them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After scanning through FtF, it appears it doesn't mention it. I'm hoping someone at the resource lab might be able to get access to this book[26] which even includes conversations between Smith and McQuesten. The award was presented to him in 1942 according to the source provided by Icewiz ([27]). Gonna keep digging. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through all the new sources in the article and I'm still not convinced WP:GNG is satisfied. The Edmonton and Winnipeg articles barely mention him if at all and rather discuss his company of the same name, the engineering award is relatively brief coverage, I don't think ancestry.com is an RS and I know findagrave.com is definitely not a WP:RS. The only source actually on him is the engineering award. I was planning on withdrawing my delete vote since the article has been improved but there's still a lot of problems with the article including WP:SYNTH about the first expressway and about his involvement with his company (he's only mentioned once in the sources as being president, and there it's that he's recovering from a bout of ill health in Florida, not about his management.) I'm also not sure directly quoting the citation in the article isn't a copyright violation. I appreciate the effort in trying to get this over the line, though, and if you find more directly on his life please let me know. SportingFlyer talk 12:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have revised the article to remove the book that doesn't mention him, and include the one that does. I also am not sure whether Smith meets WP:GNG, as it seems to me that the small part of the new source I can see on Google books suggests that it was the minister who told Smith and others to design a divided highway, so the credit for that would not go to Smith. The Ancestry and Findagrave references are included only so that facts can be verified, not to contribute to establishing notability. There are definitely two sources that state that Smith was the head of R. Melville Smith Co, but that may not help notability anyway. I can't see how quoting a citation as a quote, with a reference, can be a copyright violation, but Wikipedia has its own rules on many things that I don't yet know or understand. I don't know if I'll be able to find more sources, or if it's worth the effort, if the article may be deleted. I think Smith spent some time in China or Hong Kong, too, but again, with snippet views it's hard to be sure, and would probably not add anything re notability anyway. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that at least this AfD continue to be extended as long as we are digging up these sources. The article began with two and now we've found nearly a dozen. At the very least the information we find will be worth merging into Thomas McQuesten, and so I would encourage a Merge or soft delete (redirect) in the end. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with leaving this open, or draftifying it if more time is needed to definitively establish notability. There's a lot of good information that has been added to the article that I think should be included somewhere, but there's no good single merge candidate since it's pretty disparate information. I just don't know if this particular individual passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 23:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drafting works as well. I'll have a laptop with a usable keyboard tonight so I can start doing work over the weekend. As for suitable candidates, Thomas McQueston and any of the articles pertaining to the freeway developments (Highways in Canada, Highways in Ontario, 400-series highways, QEW, Middle Road, Highway 401, etc. all have little bits dedicated to this man, so each has a potential for some expansion with these sources. I've also made a request at the Resource Exchange and Canadian Wikipedians Noticeboard for someone to try and get a few pages from the Thomas McQuesten biography that should help. The book is available in Hamilton and at the Toronto Reference Library, but both are pretty far from me. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:20, 23 November 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WCW (WWE subsidiary)

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

This is a not needed WP:FORK from World Championship Wrestling. All information still resides there, and it is not a likely search term, therefore I believe it should just be deleted. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 18:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 18:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In some way I think it's good to separate what is the actual company and the leftovers that still exists, but on the other hand I don't know if this is notbale.★Trekker (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What is this new company other than a holding company for a tape library? WWE uses it to put out some videos and to tell stories for Network shows, but all of that relates to pre-sale stuff. I don't see anything post 2001 that would be even remotely notable. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 19:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I get what you mean, but being honest I think there should be some coverage, if we tried to make something of this it might be good. But I'm torn.★Trekker (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I have the same mixed feelings Treker does. Everything here is already sprinkled throughout World Championship Wrestling, The Alliance (professional wrestling), The Invasion (professional wrestling), etc. but having it all in one place isn't necessarily a bad thing.LM2000 (talk) 08:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the nominator's concerns but tend toward weak keep per LM2000. Sharonaj (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that any duplicate information in the WWE article should be culled, but the WCW in my mind should clearly be kept separate, as it is similar to Oldsmobile is to General Motors. Markvs88 (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To distinguish the two and as stated above, any duplicate information from the article can be removed to keep this article distinct. There is enough sourcing and info for it to remain a stand alone article. JC7V (talk) 21:11, 22 November 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 05:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohshin Habib

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

Doesn’t comply with GNG, ANYBIO and lacks of CCS and NPV. It claims notability as column writers, translators, and Gatestone writer. Gatestone itself is accused of bias writings and is not considered as viable source. — T. 18:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Things to consider: This article could also be a case of YOURSELF. Both of the main contributors (presumably socks) worked only on this article. — T. 18:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 05:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Serious lack of notability. The few references used in this article are not reliable. The primary contributor to this article does not have any other contribution on Wikipedia and probably it is a self-promotional article created the person himself. -- Ali Haidar Khan Tonmoy (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (per above). —A H M Saqib ^Message! 07:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, Kayser Ahmad (talk) 01:54, 25 November 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. With one exception, the "keep" opinions amount to "notable because the oldest". Policy and practice reject this notion, which is not reflected in guidelines such as WP:BIO. These opinions therefore need to be discounted. Sandstein 12:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chiyo Miyako

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

Ms. Miyako's only claim to notability is to have been the world's oldest known person for 3 months. The article offers no significant information about her life apart from her exceptional longevity. We have numerous tables documenting longevity records, therefore this article should either be deleted per WP:NOPAGE or redirected to List of Japanese supercentenarians to keep her name visible in search results. — JFG ^talk 09:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only sparse WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia on her husband and her secret to longevity, with mundane record details tossed in to pad the article. She lived. She avoided the Reaper longer then most. She died. Pure case of WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on four different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the comments I made at the DRV. No need to rehash them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article was nominated for deletion just two months ago and the result was "Keep", no reason to think otherwise as nothing has changed since then. Oldest person in the world, reaching the age of 117 that little can imagine to reach. I also note that the users voting for "Delete" were the same last time round as this time round, which does not seem to be the "consensus" that Wikipedia aims to achieve. Besides certain recurring characters always voting to delete, consensus of the general community seem to be to keep this article, as per the previous nomination. Also meets WP:GNG clearly, reported extensively not only in her native Japan, but all over the world in other languages. Not a case of WP:ROUTINE, coverage outside routine coverage is present. I offer an example [28], an interview of Ms Miyako due to the interest of the general population in her longevity. DonBogdan 12:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sources basically say she had a pulse. I have a pulse too. But I'm not notable. And the previous discussion took place at a time when longevity SPAs had skewed the "community consensus" to a ridiculous extreme, and engaged in massive off-wiki canvassing that irretrievably distorted the discussions on Miyako; now that they're gone it's entirely logical to have a discussion without their noise. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to correct, the first AFD closed as delete and was then overturned to no consensus at deletion review. I also provided screenshots in the DRV that showed there was off wiki canvassing that occured on the 110 club forum. CommanderLinx (talk) 23:26, 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) 18:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The world's oldest person at her death and still one of the oldest ten EVER ... either one of those ought to be considered so notable as to prohibit AfDs. LE (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC) — LE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There is no notability guideline or policy that the "oldest x" is notable or entitled to an article. Your argument is pure WP:ILIKEIT. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there is no official guideline or policy that is specifically designed to apply to "oldest x," doesn't mean that "oldest x" isn't entitled to an article. As long as "oldest x" passes the General Notability guideline, there shouldn't be any issue. --DaKardii (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not the wiki of super old people with no notablity. Let the 110'people set upntheir own wiki and run their own rules. WP:NOPAGE applies. Legacypac (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is certainly notable. She was the WOP and in the top 10 oldest people ever. People can be notable for their longevity. RightGot (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC) — RightGot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There is no notability guideline or policy that the "oldest x" is notable or entitled to an article. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the DRV is here, for clarity. My comments are right in the middle, as above in this conversation I reaffirm my view. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She was the world's oldest person --- makes her notable imo. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 21:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no notability guideline or policy that the "oldest x" is notable or entitled to an article. Your argument is pure WP:ILIKEIT. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there is no official guideline or policy that is specifically designed to apply to "oldest x," doesn't mean that "oldest x" isn't entitled to an article. As long as "oldest x" passes the General Notability guideline, there shouldn't be any issue.--DaKardii (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And there is no agreement that it does. Nothing about having a pulse is inherently notable, it's all about whether reliable sources write about it. In this case, the sources basically say "she lived", which is not, itself, remarkable, hence there's WP:NOPAGE to write here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have only been active in Wikipedia for a very short time, and I am already very tired of being bombarded with AfDs for supercentenarians. It is possible to show that some have received significant, sustained coverage in reliable sources, while others have not (and therefore that some meet WP:GNG and some don't). It does not seem to me that the nominators of these AfDs do much WP:BEFORE, and the rate at which these articles are being nominated makes it very difficult to research each to determine whether there is other information and other sources which have not yet been included in the articles. Some of the "keep" articles may not be policy-based, but many of the "delete" arguments are based on the quality of the article as it stands, and the fact that there is no notability guideline on extreme age, rather than assessing whether "many sources exist, but simply have not been included yet." WP:PAGEDECIDE RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place to lay out all the details, but I'd be happy to do so at WT:WikiProject Longevity where there's more space. There is a very long history with these articles and their use as a combination of overt self-promotion and as a way of making this into some sort of tournament (look at the history of Talk:Chiyo Miyako for an especially egregious example of the latter), so the AfDs are a long-overdue correction to that. This article specifically has a lot of the hallmarks of the long-standing issues in this topic, and the first discussion and DRV lay it out in more detail than most of these. And part of the idea of these AfDs is trying to figure out what the criteria are, again there's a lot of history behind this but it used to be way overbroad; it seemed a bit presumptuous to come up with something without any fresh discussions on which to base it, hence the current spate of them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to appropriate list. WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB should almost certainly apply here. There is absolutely nothing to say about her other than she was born, got married to a husband who traveled a lot, she liked eel, became the oldest in the world and then died. Majority of the article restates table info easily seen and better handled in Oldest people. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is important to keep track of the WOP Petervermaelen (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a blast from the past, the GRG people are starting to come out here in full force with the same old tired arguments. Thankfully, policy says otherwise. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does "keep track of the WOP" (World's Oldest Person) at List of the verified oldest people, List of the oldest living people, List of the oldest people by country and numerous national lists of oldest people in country X, e.g. Japan. Individual articles that have nothing more to say than "name, nationality, date of birth, date of death, age, favorite food, longevity tips" are best handled as entries on a list. — JFG ^talk 22:58, 26 November 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Grizzlies

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

This is an unsourced article on a minor league football team. A BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books) finds a smattering of coverage in the form of the team mentioned in a list of USAFL league standings, but nothing of depth or substance that does more than prove it exists. There are also a number of false positives such as suggestions an expansion NHL team be named the "Seattle Grizzlies" or alternative histories about the Vancouver Grizzlies moving to Seattle. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 06:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - likely search term. I cannot find anything sufficient for WP:NEXIST to support GNG in its own right. Not a professional league either. Redirect to United States Australian Football League#USAFL Teams. Aoziwe (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 14:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:58, 19 November 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) Sam Sailor 22:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

USL East Bay

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

An stub on a soccer team that "plans to make its debut in 2021". Way, way too soon and currently entirely promotional in function and intent. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see how this is promotional at all, the stub seems pretty factual to me. The franchise rights have been acquired and people have been hired per [29], so it's not speculative, and most importantly it passes WP:GNG per [30] [31] [32]. (There's also an "oppose" !vote on the talk page.) SportingFlyer talk 21:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect extending WP:HAMMER, the team doesn't have a name. Soccer America is behind a paywall (or registration wall at the very least) so I can't read the content, but that's the only source that helps the subject meet GNG. USL Soccer is not independent of the subject. The others are brief discussions of the team and focus more on other topics (Mark Hall and the stadium). Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer. Giant Snowman 10:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professional soccer clubs, even future ones, are clearly notable, the article is in no way promotional, and even if it were, AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 19:03, 26 November 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 05:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Venkaiah Swamy

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

WP:BIO of a Hindu priest sourced to a single Self published source and written like an ad. unable to find reliable sources for WP:SIGCOV. WP:PROD tag was removed. Tagged for notability since 2015. Article says stuff like "he was regarded by many villagers as a madman." DBig Xrayᗙ 15:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG; yeah, I really don't think that there are many, if any, reliable secondary sources Spiderone 19:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Now there are thousands of Hindu priests not clear how the subject is notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:41, 22 November 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 withdrawn. No need to keep this open when it will clearly be flooded with Grande stans voting keep. There is indeed some charting information and the album is recent so I'll withdraw this nom and give people a chance to improve these articles. If one/two years pass and they've still not outgrown their current stub status then I'll renominate them.--N Ø 08:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better off (Ariana Grande song)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS in my opinion. Pretty much every song from the album made some national charts but that doesn't mean an article for them is needed. The following songs (including "better off") have no sources independently covering them:

Sweetener (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Everytime (Ariana Grande song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note that album tracks "R.E.M" and "Get Well Soon" also have articles but I'm not nominating them for deletion currently because they got some independent coverage (The former for being a Beyonce reject and the latter for being about Manchester). N Ø 15:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that creating a Wikipedia page for "Better Off" would be a good thing, because it is about a toxic relationship and is alluded that it's about Mac Miller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AGNARUTO (talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC) I don't know how to sign my note. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AGNARUTO (talk • contribs) 15:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most songs are written about someone, that does not indicate that they are notable. For example she literally has a song called "pete davidson" which is about a relationship too, but doesn't have an article since it isn't notable.--N Ø 15:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least "Sweetener" and close this discussion. These articles should have been nominated separately. "Sweetener" should be kept for sure. I don't feel strongly about "Better Off" or "Everytime" -- feel free to redirect. I strongly recommend closing this discussion and nominating articles separately, so notability can be assessed individually. @MaranoFan: In the future, try redirecting articles, especially before starting a nomination covering multiple articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that it would be best to handle each song individually with their own AfD rather than a group one so the reviewers can adequately provide feedback for each. Aoba47 (talk) 00:41, 20 November 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of Netsepoye hawesi

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

This is so very clearly a high school essay that it is completely unusable. I can't even find anything here that would be worth merging to Netsepoye - just commonplace observations on synapomorphies in chimaeras that are already well covered for that taxon, and don't apply to the species in any particular way. I don't think even a redirect is indicated because who's going to search for that phrase rather than the species name? Nothing worth retaining here, sorry. (and now I successfully feel like a student contributor basher :/ ) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The references look like they could be worth saving. XOR'easter (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes Elmidae you are bad very bad - but also correct. The references are good but don't really fit the titled topic except in a loose way. A better merge target is probably Evolution of fish but even there it is hard to see how that can be smoothly accomplished.PRehse (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - regardless of the quality of the info, this should never have become a separate article. FunkMonk (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would welcome the article creator, Phoebemcgowin, adding inline citations to key statements about this particular taxon because I agree with XOR that some of the references are salvageable (I have copied ref 6 over to Netsepoye, but are there any more that are directly relevant?) I realise Phoebe will be disappointed, but there is simply too much essay-like discussion on general extinctions, and anything left over would be very welcome within the main article. There simply isn't enough to keep this is a standalone piece. (Well worth copying back to your sandbox or to a Word document if you need to show course tutors your work). Nick Moyes (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite having ten references, the absence of inline citations makes verification particularly difficult. Of the ten references, only one (Grogan) mentions Netsepoye hawesi in the title. As far as I can tell, that paper is about morphological features, not phylogeny. I suspect that the other papers mention the species only in passing, if at all. Wikipedia's article mentions an estimated extinction date, but does not indicate the earliest fossil date, which is critically important when considering the evolution of a species. Most of the article is not about the species' evolution at all. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is for my college class. Please be kind not sure why it concerns anyone. It is for an assignment that is all. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoebemcgowin (talk • contribs) 23:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebemcgowin - you need to be aware (and more importantly, your instructor/teacher needs to be aware) that Wikipedia is not meant as a platform for assignments. It is a functional encyclopedia into which well-structured student projects can be integrated as long as the authors follow certain rules. I have explained the major points on your talk page already - our articles are not essays but encyclopedic summaries, and they do not duplicate each other. We do not leave unsuitable articles live, in mainspace, just because they "need to be marked". Your instructor must know that, and should not penalize you for it. I will drop them a note, in any case. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a place for college essays, but it can be a place for educational projects! They just need to follow the rules of wikipedia, like everything else. --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 08:59, 26 November 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 12:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Moolan

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

Fails WP:GNG. Insignificant mentions in major media. This is a cookie-cutter vanity article and reeks of paid editing. As if we're supposed to believe that the article creator is so enamored of the one film that this guy has produced that he'd devote significant time to creating this article. Note also that GSS previously moved this article out of live space and into draft space, noting COI issues. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally promotional and fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and a violation of terms of use. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG Spiderone 19:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our Time Down Here

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

The subject fails WP:NBAND unless you think there has been enough outside coverage. My concern is that coverage looks somewhat trivial and I don't think WP:GNG reaches quite this low. Otherwise, no famous members, no Gold records, no charts, no national tour. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-trivial courage from NME www.nme.com/blogs/nme-blogs/notes-from-the-underground-our-time-down-here-45401 and PunkNews www.punknews.org/review/11391/our-time-down-here-midnight-mass, in addition to interviews in RockSound www.rocksound.tv/features/read/our-time-down-here and PunkNews www.punknews.org/article/46763/interviews-will-gould-our-time-down-here. In both the aforementioned PunkNews interview and their interview with Sound Magazine they mentioned both UK and European tours, some headlining and one specific European tour opening for A Loss for Words, and they've also had national air play on BBC Radio www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/cd2c42c1-85de-4c54-87c6-d76f051e422f — Preceding unsigned comment added by Issan Sumisu (talk • contribs) 19:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One play of one song, even on a national radio station, does not count as passing criterion 11 of WP:BAND. The NME coverage is indeed trivial – all it says is "I really love this band, and here's a link to download their new single". Just touring isn't enough, that tour needs to have received substantial independent coverage. That leaves us with the PunkNews and RockSound coverage – I assume these are both reliable sources but I don't know enough about them. Richard3120 (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The NME article is by no means trivial coverage, Wikipedia:Trivial mentions cites significant coverage as "sources address the subject directly in detail", and that's exactly what the article does, even if it's only three paragraphs And their tours have been covered independently by, to name a few, RockSound www.rocksound.tv/news/read/our-time-down-here-announce-midnight-mass-release-date-and-tracklisting, Alter the Press (which is owned by Absolute Punk) archive.li/3tZEf and Dead Press www.deadpress.co.uk/news-lightyear-announce-june-uk-reunion-tour/. Issan Sumisu (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The NME source is absolutely worthless, an anonymous blog post that tells you nothing about the band apart from the name of the album. It might be three paragraphs, but all it says is, "I love this band. This is the name of their new album. I love this band. Here is a link to download their single, and also a promotional link to buy their album. I REALLY love this band." The fact that they have toured doesn't make them notable, as the links are just of tour dates, which don't pass WP:NTOUR. Nevertheless, the two interviews and the album review may well be enough to keep this article. Richard3120 (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I only mentioned those specific sources because you only mentioned independent reliable proof of touring, but there's also live reviews in the aforementioned Alter the Press web.archive.org/web/20110428044201/http://www.alterthepress.com/2011/02/live-review-such-gold-our-time-down.html, along with September 2012's edition of Mayhem Magazine, March 2012's edition of Big Cheese Magazine, March 2012's edition of RockSound and June 2012's edition of Kerrang. Issan Sumisu (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 13:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 11:05, 19 November 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 12:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drita Kotaji

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO; no evidence of notability independent of her band. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 13:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a possibility that being a prof at La Cambre along with solo projects may bring the possibility of finding articles for WP:NMUSIC #1 or #10. I believe that first album on the solo project link may be a compilation album, but as far as my googling skills go, I can't find anything notable about that album, her solo work, or anything else for that matter. It is still very possible sources may pop up.Awsomaw (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 11:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Excelse (talk) 15:46, 22 November 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 Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 12:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, Edd n Eddy (season 3)

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

I'll take a lead from my AfD rationale for season 4 of this show: "Episode descriptions could easily be integrated into the main episode list article. Lead paragraph just repeats info found on the main series' article and the main episode list. There isn't enough substance here to warrant this season getting its own article. Everything about it could be placed on other relevant pages." Additionally, I'd like to add that not a single episode in this series is so noteworthy that it has its own article. References in the S3 article are almost entirely composed of links to listings on Amazon, Netflix, and the like. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 08:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if there's anything to merge, necessary merge back to List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes as was done with the former season 4 page. Levivich (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge No need for separate article. Reywas92^Talk 07:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge lead paragraph to List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:14, 27 November 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 12:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khoirabari massacre

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

Not a single source does cover the subject any significantly.I note this which suffers from first-person exaggeration and can't be corroborated across other media sources of the time.

Each covers the basic details in a paragraph or so, amidst a narrative of the numerous clashes and killings, that took place during the tumultuous times.Some just mentions a line.

Overall, I seek a merge and redirect to Assam Movement.See this comment by another editor, on a similar locus, as to the problems with the article by this editor. ∯WBG^converse 09:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This massacre happened during the Assam Agitation or the Assam Movement (1979-1985) which was for the expulsion of illegal immigrants in Assam. It had nothing to do with either making Assamese language the official language or the medium of instruction or making Bengali language the official language in Barak Valley. No one campaigned for language rights. In fact a section of the immigrants from Bangladesh - the Bengali speaking Muslims - had by then adopted the Assamese language and culture and got integrated in the greater Assamese society as Na-Asamiya. But still the Assam Agitation called for their expulsion. So it has got nothing to do with language movement as such. Hence the request for merge and redirect itself is invalid. BengaliHindu (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, if I analyse the sources:--

This reference mentions (There was a clash) in Khoirabari, a Bengali Hindu settlement about 25 kilometers north of Mangaldoi.

Nothing more nothing less.

And, the book has mentioned ample communal clashes which dispels the doubt that it was something way-extraordinary during those tumultuous spans.

This devotes five lines to the clashes.

Trivialest of trivial mentions.

Ref-4 i.e. this source does not even mention the topic and has been used to source a miscellaneous fact.

I have searched across JSTOR, SAGE et al but nothing. Also see WP:NOPAGE.

∯WBG^converse 18:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources in the article talk mainly about the killing of Muslim immigrants by Hindu villagers, not the killing of Hindu villagers. Clearly, there was some serious unrest in the area, and with hundreds of people killed (as stated in the sources), an article on this topic is justified. However, our current article is so far from the source descriptions that this is a clear case for POV WP:TNT. Rammohun's book, for instance, characterises the events as villagers against immigrants, rather than religion based, and describes instances of Muslim attacks on Muslims. On the failure to find "Khoirabari massacre" as a search term, it may be that a more neutral article title is needed, although the number of deaths is certainly well into "massacre" territory. SpinningSpark 10:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: This should be considered along with all the other "massacre" pages that শক্তিশেল has created. There's also "{{Persecution of Bengali Hindus in Assam}}".—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Did significant copy-edit, clean-up, expansion and added references. Please don't get confused, there were many massacres in 1983. In a detailed investigative report, the Indian journalist Arun Shourie called the violence a "Hobbesian war of all against all": They testified not so much to "communalism" as to the total breakdown of governance: in Nellie Lalung tribals killed Bengali Muslims, in Kokrajhar sub- division Boro Kacharis fought Bengali Hindus and Muslims; in Goreswar and Khairabari Sarani and Boro Kacharis fought Bengali Hindus; in Gohpur Boros fought Assamese Hindus; in Dhemaji and Jonai Mishing tribals fought Bengali Hindus and Muslims; in Samaguri Muslims killed Hindus; in Dhaila and Thekrabari again Muslims killed Hindus; in Chaowlkhowa Chapori Assamese Hindus and Muslims together killed Bengali Muslims. And each community that was a victim in one place was a predator in another.Baruah, Immigration, Ethnic Conflict, and Political Turmoil--Assam, 1979-1985 Each of these are notable events. This article is also about one such event. It should not be confused with the Chaulkhowa Chapori massacre which is a totally separate incident. POV, if any should be removed. But that should not the reason to delete the article. BengaliHindu (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but those quotations do not in any way justify a separate article. That's not to say that an article isn't possible, but those quotes don't do it for me. They are passing mentions of just one more incident in a much bigger picture of unrest. I took the trouble to review the article and sources in detail once. I'm not doing it again. It's down to you now to explicitly point to sources (with page numbers) that discuss the subject in depth as required by GNG. Then I might take a second look to see if the reworked article actually agrees with the sources. SpinningSpark 15:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - for now. Decent enough sources after expansion etc. Deaths are according to me up to Massacre status. That is my take on this. With that being said it still needs improvements when Kept.BabbaQ (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:34, 19 November 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. Can be redirected as soon as somebody indicates to what article... Sandstein 12:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WISE J064336.71-022315.4

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

Fails WP:NASTRO. Possibly WP:TOOSOON - currently one published paper and no popular coverage. A nearby brown dwarf, it might be possible to merge it into a list. Lithopsian (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom --DannyS712 (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The article has nothing but trivial information about this object. However, I'm not sure if there is any list where it could be placed. Psyluke (talk) 17:24, 26 November 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Olifants/Doorn Water Management Area

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

I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think this meets notability requirements. TheMrP (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is one of a set, the top level page being Water Management Area. These all correspond roughly to drainage basins, which are usually notable geographical features, but are not exactly that, they are actually arbitrary divisions for administration purposes. One can find papers with this subject in the title, "Drivers and barriers towards sustainable water and land management in the Olifants-Doorn Water Management Area, South Africa" from the journal Environmental Development being good for notability, but the rest are mostly government reports such as "The Classification of Significant Water Resources in the Olifants-Doorn Water Management Area (WMA17)". I don't think the minutae in the article of administrative jargon like "Primary drainage region E and tertiary drainage regions G30 and F60." is useful to anyone except those who actually work for the South African Directorate of Water Resource Classification – and they will have better references to consult. Probably, this will never be developed any further and the best thing to do with it is redirect it back to the main article, perhaps with the information on the dams merged in. But I'm not really sure either. SpinningSpark 00:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PRESERVE. I think there are better ways of presenting this information, but it is verifiable and encyclopaedic, and deletion is not the best way of dealing with it. Let's keep it as it is until an editor is prepared to reorganise all these articles into a better format. SpinningSpark 14:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND at this time. I do see a couple research journals but not sure if they're substantive enough coverage. Also lots of primary sources. I'd be fine with a redirect, merge, or draftify if a better way of presenting the information is found - no reason not to have this information, but it doesn't merit a standalone article at this time. SportingFlyer talk 18:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:20, 19 November 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 05:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Calf for Best Short Film

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

Almost all redlinks, unlikely to be created ^{[Username Needed]} 12:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also list with an incorrect title, though that would just be for a move. ^{[Username Needed]} 12:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 13:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:18, 19 November 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 12:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EnterpriseAlumni

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

There is no evidence of independent notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NCORP; an advertorial piece on an unremarkable company. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:GSS User:CAPTAIN RAJU

Notable company. Recommend to retain listing, company is founded by MBE recipient Emma Sinclair.

Their application was the first commercial partner app deployed on SAP Cloud Platform and they are becoming a leading research firm on Corporate Alumni / Alumnus

Company has created new market highlighted by Deloitte https://blog.bersin.com/why-former-workers-can-be-long-term-assets/

Please advise any adjustments you would like to see and any alternatives to deletions.

Ceisenmann (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 13:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just about reaches notability based on the Telegraph article and Yahoo Finance reports. Not a fan of this content but what I like or don't like doesn't matter. FOARP (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: The Yahoo Finance is a press release which was originally published at prnewswire.com and the Telegraph piece does not establish notability and reads like an interview. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The Telegraph is an RS, and the coverage given to the company in the article just about rises to the level of "significant coverage". Like I said, I don't like stuff that reads like publicity (and it does) but there are always going to be borderline cases, and this appears to be one that just gets across into notability. FOARP (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:18, 19 November 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. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maui Fringe Festival

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

A non-notable local event, sources only from local news outlets and trivial and WP:ROUTINE announcements, a search reveals only passing mentions outside of local sources. Fails WP:EVENT, or if seen as an organization, definitely fails WP:ORG, and WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep assessed and approved via AfC, this annual event is similar to the many sister events listed here Fringe_theatre#List_of_fringe_festivals and in fact met a redlink. Spot checking did not find any pattern of deletions of similar festivals based in other cities. Since we have many similar articles on similar events there is no good reason to delete this page which is part of a collection of pages on the topic of Fringe theatre. Legacypac (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe_theatre#List_of_fringe_festivals lists everything from the very famous to the inconsequential, which isn't a case for keeping this article. Just because Edinburgh Fringe Festival is notable does not make another one in some random place notable, e.g. Tucson Fringe Festival. The criteria of WP:N needs to be satisfied, and WP:OTHERSTUFF is not an argument. Hzh (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one has found Tucson Fringe Festival not notable. Obviously the original one in Edinburgh is notable but I would expect every other similar event is going to get mainly "local coverage". Therefore in the absence of fringe festival policy we need to look at how similar pages have been found to be notable or not. Evidently, because they continue to stand, similar pages are notable which means this topic is also likely notable. It has run for a few years, not just a one time thing. Legacypac (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still essentially an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Until it has been established all such local festivals are considered notable, it isn't really an argument. Frankly I can't see how it can become established as a rule - there are all kinds of festivals all over the world, just because, let's say, Cannes Film Festival is notable, it doesn't mean that another film festival established in a a little town by someone's grandmother would be notable as well. Hzh (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 13:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:14, 19 November 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 000 (emergency telephone number). Merging of any content can be taken from the page history. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ambulance and Fire Communication Centre

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

Not notable in its own right. No proper references. The substantial content is all about the Queensland Ambulance Service and Queensland Fire and Rescue Service operations, not about the building. Rathfelder (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Remagoxer (talk) 13:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to 000 (emergency telephone number). Not sure if the current article is about the building or more likely about the organisation and function performed in it. In either case it is not inherently notable in its own right, but it does deserve due weight and there is the perfect place for it in 000 (emergency telephone number), where there is already a general section for this subject and already one specific for Victoria. Aoziwe (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:14, 19 November 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 06:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muwatin media network

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

The subject of the article does not seem to meet WP:GNG and cites no sources. Kb03 (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 14:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:14, 19 November 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 12:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New York Local Government Assistance Corporation

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

Article on a statutory public company in New York does not meet GNG. Article's references are not WP:INDEPENDENT. A BEFORE search (Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, newspapers.com) only finds mentions in statute law books and passing mention on something called bondbuyer.com [33]. Chetsford (talk) 06:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Few passing mentions in some sources, no in-depth coverage, not even a summary-like coverage or definition/discussion of its importance anywhere. Not notable. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The New York Local Government Assistance Corporation listing is important because it shows the scope of the New York State public-benefit corporation issue in New York State politics, i.e., there are a lot of them and many hold substantial outstanding debt. This particular corporation still holds almost $2 billion in outstanding debt even though its purpose ended in the mid-1990s. The content in the Wikipedia page itself uses the corporation's New York State oversight organizations (e.g, the New York State Comptroller's office website and the New York State Authorities Budget Office) as sources for its financial, organizational, and mission information.Smellyshirt5 (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Smellyshirt5 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

I would just like to note that User:Diannaa just removed a bulk of the entry for some sort of copyright violation because she says I borrowed too heavily for a description of the corporation on a New York State Office of the State Comptroller's webpage. That seems silly, considering it's a government source, but I am including it here for whatever that means for this record. From my personal talk page: "Copyright problem on New York Local Government Assistance Corporation Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://www.osc.state.ny.us/pension/debtlgac.htm, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)"Smellyshirt5 (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smellyshirt5: it might be a government source, but it's a state government source, and that makes all the difference. Sources written by the federal government are in the public domain by default, but the state governments typically hold a copyright in their publications. Although there are exceptions, New York is not one. In short: just like any other source, you need to write the information from the source in your own words. Imzadi 1979 → 00:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 14:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is good for Wikipedia to provide a basic reference on what is this corporation, which has to be understood as part of boring economic/financial/government discussions, about budgets etc. in newspapers occasionally and elsewhere. It should be developed more. Wikipedia has articles about skateboard shops and tiny restaurants with 100,000 sales tops. This holds $2 billion debt. That is enough. You try to borrow or lend $2 billion and we can have an article about you too. --Doncram (talk) 06:11, 26 November 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

California's 10th congressional district election, 2018

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

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

It's not standard practice on Wikipedia to content-fork standalone articles about each individual congressional district's individual results in a national or statewide election. Special elections get their own standalone articles, because they're isolated topics that aren't part of any larger event in which they can be discussed, and thus can't be merged anywhere else — but regular elections on the standard national election day just get covered in one statewide results article per state, not spun off as standalone articles about each individual district. In both of these instances, the only special notability claim that really exists at all is that the results were close enough that the winner couldn't be declared on election night, because mail-in and provisional ballots were still in play — but that's not a strong reason why an individual district would need its own standalone election article when United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018 already exists, with space for these to be discussed there.
Our role is to have articles about things that pass the ten-year test for enduring significance, not to necessarily start an article about every single thing that happens to be present in the current news cycle — but neither of these shows a credible 10YT pass. If one of these turned into such a pitched legal battle that the seat was still vacant when the new house convenes in January, then maybe there would be a credible case for creating a standalone article, but "the results haven't been finalized yet as of five days after election day" is not a strong reason in and of itself why a standalone article would be necessary yet. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018 article was a pale substitute for this article. California has 53 elections like this one every year, and at least some of them will be notable in the long term. As we discovered with articles like the Audrey Denney article, we have an opportunity to attract new editors each time we have an election. Sending people to an omnibus article like United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018 is a horrifying introduction to Wikipedia for newcomers, and I suspect we lose many because we are so eager to herd them to omnibus article. Sometimes, the election won't be notable, and that's ok...we can then blank and redirect to the appropriate section of the United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018 article. This election will certainly remain notable though, due both to the close margins, and due to the drama that occurred during the primary. -- RobLa (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it's worth noting that Bearcat accidentally linked the AfD nomination for California's 39th congressional district election, 2018 to this page rather than to the existing nomination the existing AfD nomination page, where there's an archive of the June AfD discussion. Many of the discussion points in that AfD discussion also apply to this discussion. -- RobLa (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New renominations are not relinked back to the old closed discussions — they are linked to the currently open discussion, which is this one. So no, I didn't accidentally do anything incorrect — this page is the correct place for that article's AFD template to link to, because this page is where the currently active discussion about its includability or lack thereof is taking place. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: could you clarify whether this AfD nomination still applies to California's 39th congressional district election, 2018 as well as California's 10th congressional district election, 2018? -- RobLa (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - California's 10th congressional district election was an important 2018 midterm race for the U.S. House of Representatives and deserves special coverage, for a couple reasons: 1) this race was identified as a key battleground that might have affected partisan control of the U.S. House in the 116th Congress (Source: Ballotpedia); 2) California 10 is the swing district closest to San Francisco, leading to an unprecedented level of civic engagement, with tens of thousands of Bay Area volunteers phone banking or canvassing for Josh Harder (Sources: New York Times, SwingLeft); 3) Josh Harder represents a new model for candidates from the business world -- smart, early-in-their-career moderates who are willing to give up making big money to run for office (Source: Recode). These are important distinctions, which are likely to impact American politics in the future. There is not enough space for those distinctions to be made in the broad, but shallow United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018 article. For those reasons, I believe it is appropriate for this CA-10 election to be covered in its own article on Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration. Fabrice Florin (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Ballotpedia is a user-generated source on which anybody can insert any claim they want to insert, so it is not a reliable source for the claim that one particular district towered over every other district in the United States as The Ultimate Deciding Battle for partisan control of the House. Secondly, SwingLeft is an advocacy group, not a media outlet. Thirdly, phone banking happens everywhere, and lots of districts across the United States saw a major increase in civic engagement this year compared to most midterms, so being "the swing district closest to San Francisco" is not inherently more special than being the closest swing district to Los Angeles or Houston or Chicago or New York City or Miami or Seattle. Fourthly, any reliably sourceable content about the idea that Harder represents a radical or innovative new model for candidates belongs in Harder's WP:BLP, not in an article about the race. None of these are reasons why the California 10th or the California 39th are "special" enough to warrant treatment denied the other 433 congressional districts in the country. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ballotpedia is no longer an open wiki, so I don't think that WP:USERG applies there anymore. -- RobLa (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, (sadly) Ballotpedia is fully under editorial control of employed staff, they kicked all the volunteer editors out, so it should meet RS guidelines. Legoktm (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't need articles on elections in individual constituencies. This should either be covered at the article on the constituency, or a results page of the wider House elections. Number 5 7 21:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57:: Could you be more specific when you say "we". I believe Wikipedia does need articles like this, and I've made that case over at Talk:United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_California,_2018#Splitting_off_election_articles. -- RobLa (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with me using the word "we" here. If I said "We don't believe these articles are required", that would be problematic because I'm speaking on other people's behalf. However, I am able to hold the view that we don't need these articles. The fact that you're quibbling over a perfectly valid use of language suggests you might be so invested in trying to keep this article that you can no longer see the wood for the trees. Number 5 7 12:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is an unneeded duplication of the United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018#District 10 article. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong enough opinion to vote - I'm not yet sold on having individual articles for races. I think it would help if there was some test or criterion (as an alternative to using the ten year test) to decide when a race should be split into its own article. I do agree with RobLa that the mega article for all 53 California House races doesn't provide the level of detail I'd expect from Wikipedia. Maybe it's a California specific problem and we should better split the lists to allow for more textual content? I'm not really sure. An RfC might be a better forum for this rather than AfD. Legoktm (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legoktm: thank you for weighing in. I agree that automatically blessing individual articles for all 435 races every two years could be problematic, and I'm willing to concede that each race is not automatically wp:notable. Still, I have a hard time seeing why an article about the election between Jeff Denham and Josh Harder is less notable than the United States House of Representatives election in Wyoming, 2018. I hope we can get past the kneejerk "not notable" reaction anytime an article centering on a specific U.S. congressional seat is proposed. I think the CA-10 race is one of the clearer examples of a notable election (albeit not as notable as, say, WA-05 in 1994, or VA-07 in 2014, or NY-14 in 2018, but still more notable than WY-AtLarge in 2018).

I looked at some pageview states for the CA-10 article, which give a sense of how biased the view that Wikipedia presented to people who used our site to read up on the issues at the last minute. Here's a few of the relevant pages:

If you look at the election-day content of those pages, it was quite biased toward the incumbent, which made Wikipedia a terrible resource for neutral information about that election. Though the CA-10/Denham/Harder set above wasn't as incumbent-biased as other close races in California, it still provided a good example of bias in Wikipedia. As I've already confessed my personal bias toward Harder, my proposed change arguably hurts my self-interest. I'm making the case for a less biased approach toward dealing with a non-incumbent Republican challenger in 2020, because my hope here is to ensure we have a robust process to live up to our WP:NPOV aspirations in the lead-up to the 2020 election, and to make sure we have a place to direct eager new editors to collaborate on prose for not-yet-notable candidates rather than forcing them to toil in Draft space for the months before the election.

One thing to note about the pageviews in #4 above (the big CA 2018 article). I'm guessing that at least some non-trivial number of pageviews were from people looking for challenger candidates all over California but only had redirects that pointed to the section of the page for that district. Readers were confronted with a tangle of tables, largely focused on the primary that already happened in June. For example, people interested in learning more about Josh Harder before November 11 were redirected here: "Josh Harder" redirect target on 2018-11-06.

Perhaps a better example is stepping through the experience for where people in CA-45 were pointed when they tried visiting the "Katie Porter" page. As of this writing, her page is still a redirect despite the fact that she is now in the lead in the vote count. On election day, that redirect went here: "Katie Porter" redirect target on 2018-11-06.

What's also bad about the the big CA 2018 article is that diffs are difficult even for someone as experienced as I am. I wouldn't want to use the big CA 2018 article to teach anyone new how to read diffs. However, for something as contentious as elections, readable diffs are critical.

I'm admittedly getting a little worn down by the discussion about splitting off election articles on the "Talk:...in_California, 2018" page. I'm not convinced by the arguments, but I'm beginning to see how the big CA 2018 article could be made better by upmerging some content from the pages that are on the block for deletion (even if we don't delete them).

It could be that the best path to take is to allow this type of article before the election, and then use the days after the dust has settled on the election to decide (on a case-by-case basis) if the article is still a) notable in its own right, or b) needs to be merged into the article about the winner of the election. I'm hoping, though, that we can keep this article around as a reasonable example of an article focused on a single district election, and that we get the opportunity to improve this (and a few others like it) to good article status.

In some ways, these comments (and my comments on the big CA 2018 article talk page) are my proto-RfC for this. I'm not sure if/how to proceed with such a thing. What form would an RfC for this topic? Where should I advertise such a thing? I think an AfD page is a terrible place to discuss it, but I'm not sure where the best place to go where healthy consensus-building can occur. -- RobLa (talk) 05:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Wikipedia has an established consensus that there is no such thing as temporary notability. We do not do "there should be an article about this right now because it's currently in the news, and then once the dust has settled we'll deem it not notable anymore and redirect it somewhere else" — the rule is that a topic is not notable at all until you can prove that it has reached the threshold of being permanently notable forever.

Secondly, Wikipedia also has an established consensus that providing complete and exhaustive "every candidate in every district" coverage of elections is not our role. As an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, we are incredibly vulnerable to being abused by people who want heavily advertorialized Wikipedia articles for the publicity, and by people's opponents or competitors or enemies who want the first people's articles to be heavily dirtwashed with libel and slander and criticism — which is one of the reasons why we have defined notability standards to separate people who qualify for Wikipedia articles from people who don't. When it comes to politics, we have settled on the notability standard that officeholders are notable, while candidates are not — so it is not our job to concern ourselves with giving everybody "equal time", or with whether having articles about officeholders creates an "incumbency bias" or not. We're not a news outlet, and our job is not to create or maintain content about every single person whose name happens to be temporarily present in the current news cycle — our job is to limit ourselves to creating and maintaining articles about people who have accomplished something notable enough that people will still be looking for information about them ten years from now. That means officeholders and not candidates, it means writers who have attained significant distinctions (such as notable literary awards) and not necessarily every writer who ever had their name on the cover of a book, and on and so forth.

Literally anybody on Wikipedia can try to start an article about literally anything or anybody that exists at all, or even sometimes self-invented hoaxes — we have no way to stop them from trying, and all we can do is decide whether to keep it or not after it's already here. So we have to have notability standards in place to distinguish what's our role to cover and what isn't — because without those we're not an encyclopedia anymore, but just a pointless cross between a press release distribution database and a really badly-designed social networking platform. And whether you like it or not, one of the standards Wikipedia has decided upon is that it's not our role to give as much coverage to unsuccessful candidates for office as we do to actual officeholders, because we can't guarantee such articles the degree of maintenance that they require to stay compliant with our content rules.

And finally, as I've pointed out to you before, as a person who directly volunteered on the campaign of one of the candidates in one of these very races, you don't have enough independence from the race to be an objective judge of how notable they are to history and/or the rest of the world. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: we really don't need to set a precedent of having individual articles for each and every congressional race. The overview pages work in most cases. Yes, in exceptional cases we should have individual articles--but this election doesn't strike me as one. There were dozens of highly contested U.S. House races in 2018; this one isn't special. Marquardtika (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Marquardtika: Check out how many single House elections have their own articles in Category:United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2006. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need every close House race to have its own article. This one just appears closer than the rest because the mail-in ballots come in late. Imagine if NJ-03, NC-09, OK-05, and fifty others each had their own articles. HotdogPi 23:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @HotdogPi: It's not hard to imagine. That happened in 2006: Category:United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2006. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main CA House 2018 article. Some of the prose should certainly be kept (and some can be excised) but there should not be articles for individual House elections unless there are extraordinary circumstances beyond being a competitive race. It would be inappropriate though to leave the section of the CA article as just a results table. Reywas92^Talk 07:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I agree with Reywas92. We should merge the articles for the 10th and 39th congressional district elections to the main article, to at least keep some of the content, but these elections aren't significant enough to warrant standalone articles for them. Some of the sections for the districts in the main article should include more prose citing the competitiveness and significance of the races, but not all of it is necessary and some of it only pertains to the individual district and not the whole slate of elections in California. TNats ₃ 10:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92 and TNats3: thanks for acknowledging that some of the content is important. Once we can agree on the most logical and correct way to split up the United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018 article (which is due for a WP:SPLIT for many reasons), I'm prepared to help with the work necessary to make that article fit into the overall structure, using WP:Summary style sections to keep the parent article from having too much detail. For example, I copied much of the important prose from this article into the Josh Harder article, thinking maybe that would be a good home for it. Muboshgu tightened it up quite a bit, so that now there is a brief WP:Summary style paragraph pointing this article. That seems like the right choice, provided that an interested reader can still find the well-sourced material in the current CA-10 election in 2018 article in a logical place on Wikipedia.

Dividing California along congressional district boundaries seems least contentious and most neutral, but we can try other ways. I also agree that the CA-39 election in 2018 article needs a lot of work, and that work is probably best done by people near/in/from that district that know the most about the area and the reliability of news sources about the area. However, I'm prepared to defend the level of detail in the CA-10 election in 2018 article. Would you believe that a similar level of detail would also be inappropriate for any of these other single-district articles: United States House of Representatives election in Alaska, 2018, ...in Delaware, 2018, ...in Montana, 2018, ...in North Dakota, 2018, ...in South Dakota, 2018, ...in Vermont, 2018, or ...in Wyoming, 2018? -- RobLa (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reason for my keep vote is based on WP:SIZE. I have long suggested that there should be more prose in the election articles (including verifiable biographical information about the candidates). If we include more than one or two sentences of prose for each of California's 53 races, the size of the page is not going to be manageable. In that vein, for California, especially, but probably for most US States with 10+ districts, once we start adding detail about the race, the candidates, the district, if would be entirely appropriate for each individual race to be split into separate articles. --Enos733 (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons stated above. Don't merge per WP:SIZE and WP:NOTPAPER. Why not have a separate article for any race that meets WP:NOTE? This meets WP:N and probably an article on any close or contested federal election would meet WP:N. Levivich (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CD 10 and (also the similar CD 39) because this 10th CD election was a very high profile and somewhat unique race. The CD had been held for 14 years by Democrat Ellen Tauscher before Denham won it in 2010. In 2016, Clinton beat Trump in the presidential race in the CD while Denham was reelected. In 2018, Denham finished 25% points in front of Harder who was only 2.4% ahead of the only other Republican in the (Proposition 14) top-two primary, with five more Democrats trailing. So it came very close to being a two-Republican general election, a partisan nightmare for both party leaders. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy who said, "I hate it," voiced such a concern. The race was the only CD to flip to Democrats in the Central Valley, while they were flipping many seats in Southern California, and the results came down the absentee ballot count. Activist (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the OC districts were also held by Republicans for years and yet they switched.[34] Should we make articles for those too? David O. Johnson (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@David O. Johnson: - yes, I believe the 2018 elections in CA-39, CA-45, CA-46, CA-47, CA-48, and CA-49 are also worthy of separate articles, and I think we squandered the opportunity to attract editors who know a lot about those districts by obsessing about deleting/redirecting the candidate pages before the election. We should have had a framework for good, NPOV articles to be created while those elections were in progress. As folks will note, this is an AfD nomination for both the CA-10 2018 article and the CA-39 2018 article, and that this AfD nomination is an extension of the second AfD nomination for CA-39 article (here's the first one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California's 39th congressional district election, 2018). Even though the following might not be a great encyclopedic source, I think this editorial makes a stronger case to what Activist is making: AlterNet.org editorial about why the CA-10 race was a unique bellwether. -- RobLa (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @RobLa: This AfD only related to CA-10. CA-39 isn't mentioned anywhere here: California's 10th congressional district election, 2018. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@David O. Johnson: see my discussion with Bearcat up above (ending where I ask "@Bearcat: could you clarify whether this AfD nomination still applies to California's 39th congressional district election, 2018..." You'll notice that at the top of that CA-39 article, the deletion notice banner links to this discussion. -- RobLa (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David O. Johnson, this is a batch nomination of two related articles: the 10th and the 39th. Bearcat (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Activist: I agree with your point on a meta level (per my reply to David O. Johnson), but your comment may be a little misleading in the details. CA-10 since 2012 is a very different district than CA-10 from 2002-2012 or CA-10 from 1992-2002. I go into a lot more detail over on Talk:California's 10th congressional district, but the BLUF version: the CA-10 from the Ellen Tauscher era has much more in common with the current CA-03 than it does with the current CA-10. -- RobLa (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thorough efforts and analysis of the complex CA-10 situation. I read all your comments and those to which you'd directed editors, for background. Your points are all well taken. Activist (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not think there was anything particularly unique about either of these races (as there were many Obama/Clinton seats held by Republicans going into the election). Having lots of Democratic candidates in the 10th was not necessarily unique. Absentee ballots in California flipped several races. The reason I am a keep is the opposite - that there is sufficient information about the race to write a full article (as there is for many, if not most congressional races in the United States). Our experience with special elections in the United States shows that a quality article can be written about a race in every congressional district. I am sure that it may also be the case for electoral districts in the UK, Canada, and elsewhere (especially where candidates run independently). I think the reasoning for the broader pages like United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2014 is to provide a state-by-state overview of the races, which set the skeleton for expansion. --Enos733 (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasonable notable, acceptable quality (thought can be brought up to better, per above comment re quality articles about individual congressional district elections) --DannyS712 (talk) 08:07, 28 November 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 has rebutted the assessment that the sources proposed are of poor quality or depth. Sandstein 12:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orbit Culture

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

Non-notable band, absolutely no evidence of meeting any WP:BAND criteria for inclusion. Albums are self-released, and references are primary sources. I was unable to find significant coverage in anything but obscure sources. A draft version of this was deleted as WP:G12 copyvio of https://soundcloud.com/orbitculture but this version seems OK with just minor phrasing copied. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note Page semi-protected due to persistent socking; cf Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bl4ckSireen. AGK ■ 13:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the socking and copyvio, there are two in-depth third-party sources establishing notability via WP:GNG: Overdrive magazine and Dead Rhetoric website. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contrary to the above "keep" comment, neither Overdrive magazine and Dead Rhetoric website are particularly independent coverage. Overdrive's "About Us" section contains contact information along with this solicitation: "... Want to be featured on Overdrive? Get in touch!" Dead Rhetoric's contact info likewise includes solicitation for: "... band interview and review submissions." Such websites fail reliability in that they encourage and accept self-promotional content. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to reply similarly, that any web site that solicits material makes for a questionable reliable or independent source. These seem like niche publications also, not what I'd consider mainstream coverage. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Niche is fine. It doesn't need to be mainstream if there are enough significant niche sources, especially if we're dealing with niche genres like this one. That said, as pointed out, these particular niche sources aren't significant, per their open solicitation of promotional content. ShelbyMarion (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks for sharing your thoughts on my article. I added a new reference related to the Redfog album and I will be grateful if you could consider that as well and not delete my article. I'll try to improve my article in the best way I can if I can find anything useful I'll add it to my article for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bl4ckSireen (talk • contribs) 18:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC) — Bl4ckSireen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@Bl4ckSireen: Well, you added a couple of reviews to one of their albums. One publication (Stormbringer) looks OK but the other is a blog, which isn't OK. So in total we have just one decent source, which still isn't enough, I'm afraid. This band looks like they're poised to become notable, but for now it seems WP:TOOSOON. If I were you, I'd move this to draft space or your user space for incubation while waiting for the band to get more coverage. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about the other sources like Dead Rhetoric or Overdrive Magazine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bl4ckSireen (talk • contribs) 08:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already discussed above. They aren't great sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please check my references again? I edited most of them and added new and better ones. I don't know if this discussion is going to be continued because no one gave any comments anymore and in my article It's written: Keep. But the AfD message is still there. I'd appreciate if you can close this discussion if you found my article better now (Bl4ckSireen (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:08, 19 November 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) Atlantic306 (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Go Set

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

Given this article's long time on Wikipedia, that there is a {{Template:The Go Set}} and the band's extensive listing of performances in off-Wikipedia (reliable or not) third party sources - I have WP:BEFORE'd - it would appear to me much better to start a deletion discussion than to speedily delete this article, as was requested. I would have expected some coverage of this Melbourne-based band in either The Age or Herald Sun, that city's two main newspapers, but have found none. Does this article pass the WP:GNG and/or WP:BAND tests for notability? Discuss. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is defintely not very much but it is not zero either? But does not help I think? Aoziwe (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes IRS are not jumping out at you but they are there, for example [35] [36] [37] all of which are non commercial sites / "government" and would be highly reliable. I found these rather easily so would assume if I looked longer there would be more. Two of these have relative depth. Aoziwe (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take some time to do a deeper search later and i-vote then, but for now, I'm not sure about the sources you found. [38] is a press release. [39] is a user submitted site. So those two are not good sources. I'm not sure about [40] but it reads suspiciously promotional. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be plenty of coverage: [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]. --Michig (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They have released more than two albums, they have toured both Australia and internationally. Reliable sources, with substantial coverage, have now been added – more are mentioned above.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:09, 23 November 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 12:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arkansas Impact

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

Minor league basketball team that operated for one season. No WP:INDEPENDENT sources in article. A basic BEFORE (JSTOR, Google News, Google Books, newspapers.com) fails to find any additional sources. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 08:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from multiple, independent sources.—[Bagumba (talk) 09:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my basic WP:BEFORE (Google) brought up: [57] [58] [59] (paywalled) and at least the following from Arkansas Online (paywalled) which while likely routine shows the team was consistently covered by local media in their season of operation: ([60] (paywalled) [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]) and I stopped there. I see no problem with keeping it, but also am not going to argue too hard on its behalf. SportingFlyer talk 11:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: Thanks for sharing that. Per GNG, articles from the same publisher i.e. The Arkansas Democrat Gazette count as a single source for notability purposes. I generally consider SBNation to be an amateur blog, the exception being a few of their high-profile, veteran writers. The Arkansas Business source could be a trivial mention (unclear without access), and a lot of local/regional "business" papers tend to be PR. I still think more sources are needed. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: there's an argument to be made a sports team which obtains reliable and ongoing coverage in a the state's newspaper of record should count toward notability reasons, but I don't disagree with you - I'm just showing the team was reliably covered, and the coverage easily found for others to respond to, given the nature of the nomination. I'm probably a "weak keep". SportingFlyer talk 22:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:07, 19 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zoneton Fire Protection District

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

A fire protection district doesn't have any implied geography hook for notability as it fails WP:GEOLAND, and this particular fire district also fails WP:GNG. A PROD was declined three years ago in favor of a redirection, but the redirect was recently reverted. I'm fine with either a delete or a delete then redirect. SportingFlyer talk 23:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Talk:Zoneton_Fire_Protection_District. There is also a discussion going on about this page somewhere. I'll see if I can find it. Legacypac (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People live in many districts across the world, but just because a government creates a district in which people live doesn't make the district a "populated place." This would make any governmentally-defined zone, such as a special tax district, automatically notable, as long as people live there, which doesn't make logical sense, especially since census tracts are not notable. The article also has no references. SportingFlyer talk 23:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer talk 00:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that all independent governmental units are likely to meet WP:GNG. Unlike census tracts, where they are just passive governmental units, each government district exerts a certain amount of authority (and likely has press coverage of the entity). --Enos733 (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Enos733: Does this one, though? There are only two links in the article, one of which is a link to the website, the other to the county the district is in. A WP:BEFORE search comes up with this: [67] which while entertaining is not notable on its own. SportingFlyer talk 23:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found four pages of (mostly routine) coverage of the district on Google News (Search "Zoneton Fire") including an article in the Courier-Journal about the water rescue. I also found this article about its 60th anniversary as a district. I am not going to say there is much independent coverage here, but there is no question that the district is itself verifiable and that their board is composed of elected officials. So, I think it is quite possible to write a comprehensive article about the district. --Enos733 (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The election's only open for three hours and only to property owners in the district, it's not even as if it's a generally elected position. Furthermore, WP:GNG requires more than just WP:V, and I still don't see significant/independent coverage. SportingFlyer talk 00:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Per WP:GEOLAND. I see nom's point about assessment districts but nevertheless I think they're notable. Perhaps nom might try to gain consensus for modifying GEOLAND to exclude such inhabited legally defined regions? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOLAND refers to "legally recognized places" i.e. legally recognized as a place, not a place that is legally recognized as something else e.g. a fire protection district. My back yard is a place in the genral sense of the term, and it is legally recognised as being my back yard, however it is not legally recognised as a "place".--Pontificalibus 09:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, sorry but does this mean that every government/legally authorised organisation is notable? i see from the article that this district covers "59 square miles" (is the population covered even 100th?) from its website has around 50 staff (includes 30 volunteer firefighters), i know with regard to articles that subject size doesnt necessarily matter, but from the category "Fire departments" (that covers the world) there are only about 500 existing articles whereas from Firefighting in the United States there are "27,198[1] fire departments nationwide" so does this mean we are lacking 100ths of such articles, let alone other govt. regions/authorities? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple: Based on the definition of WP:GEOLAND being used above, then yes, any legally authorised organisation with a geographic footprint would be a "legally populated place." I think this is an incredibly expansive interpretation for a guideline which is supposed to give presumptive notability to cities, towns, and villages. I think this is actually a WP:NORG. SportingFlyer talk 22:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the question, that goes beyond this AfD. Does a governmental special purpose district (which may or may not have elected officials) fit under WP:GEOLAND, WP:NCORP, or some other policy. I think that WP:Geoland is the correct policy/guideline, for many of the reasons we keep all state/provincial legislators - to be comprehensive. We can verify a lot of things about independent governmental organizations, including their elected officers and appointed officials, their scope of jurisdiction, and activities they are engaged in. They may not be long articles, but I think as an encyclopedia, all independent governmental units are likely to meet WP:N. --Enos733 (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Huh? No, a fire district does not get a free pass for notability. We should not be covering any subject about which there do not exist independent reliable sources which provide significant coverage regardless of what it is. "Presumed" notability is just that -- a presumption that may not ultimately turn out to be the case. Unless someone can demonstrate that it passes GNG, then this seems like a clear delete (not opposed to a redirect if there's a sensible target). Also, it has absolutely no citations whatsoever, and only a link to the official site. Wikipedia is not an extension of local government websites. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arguing that this meets WP:GEOLAND is a complete misunderstanding of that guideline. The guideline is intended to recognize places of human habitation, not every conceivable administrative division that contains human residents. This is the equivalent of arguing that every city block, or every street, or every house, is notable; it's an absurd argument. The places of human habitation covered by this tax district have their own articles, as appropriate. Additionally, I find no evidence that this meets GNG. Vanamonde (talk) 05:16, 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) 10:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Vanamonde93, it's not a misunderstanding of GEOLAND at all. Contrary to your straw man style counterexamples, GEOLAND has nothing to do with houses, which are not places in any reasonable sense of the word. Further, your theory that the places covered by the district have articles means that the district shouldn't have an article is also silly. By this theory the United States shouldn't have an article since all 50 states already do. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not a straw man at all. The United States is an independently notable entity: it does not require GEOLAND. GEOLAND exists to cover places of permanent human habitation not covered by other criteria for notability. Vanamonde (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- - I said that the houses were a straw man. The US example was in response to your other argument about sub-places. Where in GEOLAND does it say that a place *must* fail to be covered by other criteria before GEOLAND applies? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't interpret GEOLAND to mean every kind of "overlay" district is presumed automatically notable. There is very little independent coverage. I would advocate merging into Bullitt County, Kentucky if there were any sourced material to mention there (and theoretically splitting back out into a separate article in the future if/when there was enough future independent coverage to make this district notable). But as it stands, there is not enough to establish notability and meet GNG. MB 19:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG so we can only rely on WP:GEOLAND and the only relevant criteron is "populated legally recognised places". The question therefore is whether this Fire Protection District is legally recognised as a "place". Place (United States Census Bureau) seems quite clear that a "place" in the US is defined based on an independent concentraion of population, and that an adminstrative area for a particular pupose that encompases various places is not in itself a place. Without sources supporting the notion that a US Fire Protection District is legally recognised as a "place" the article must be deleted.--Pontificalibus 08:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if WP:NGEO did apply (which I have a hard time seeing why it should), it specifically says that notability is "presumed, but not guaranteed" for features that meet WP:GNG. And to quote from WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article". Since there is no sign of significant coverage in this case that assumptions does not hold, and therefore there is no reason to assume notability. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:17, 28 November 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 12:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aakash Gupta

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

Not a significant person. The article's first sentence refers to him being a data scientist, but the references all indicate him being a part of his state's U19 cricket team at the best, thus disqualifying him from WP:NCRICKET being a youth player only. In terms of his academic achievements: Not a professor, WP:NPROF. He does have an NGO, but that is again non-notable as per wikipedia guidelines, Thus I believe the article should not exist here. Daiyusha (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see that they pass WP:GNG nor any other SNG. Seems highly likely to be WP:COI / WP:AUTOBIOG given the creator has only ever edited this article. Spike 'em (talk) 13:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:14, 25 November 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 12:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goldie Michelson

(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 on the list of American supercentenarians among the 100 oldest American people ever is sufficient for recording notable facts in this encyclopedia. — JFG ^talk 09:35, 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 Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all thoroughly routine coverage; she lived, she volunteered, she walked places, she died. The overtly promotional tone of this page certainly doesn't help. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:58, 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 she got a gift and letter from a politician for being old and she liked to walk instead of use a car. I agree with the above that the article seems very promotional in nature. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are told all about her life: she was born in Russia and moved to the United States when she was two, she got a master's degree, married a real estate developer, had a daughter, taught theatre ... oh, yes, and she lived a long time. And that's more or less it. Delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:57, 25 November 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 12:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Godfrey Robarts Pearse

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

No clear notability, no secondary sources, primary sourced cited are not even easily accessed. Article was created by one of the many socks of the prolific Candia/Levieux hoax vandal. Phso2 (talk) 09:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm pretty sure this is a hoax. The author has taken a probably real but equally probably non-notable person[68] and written an essentially fictional biography about him. A knighthood would make him notable, but I can find no evidence of him being knighted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He seems to be real enough - The Times has him attending a levee in 1873. But I can’t find evidence of a knighthood, which would make him notable. Also the article is riddled with what seems to be utter fiction. In particular, the LSE was founded when he would have been in his 50s, which makes his attendance highly suspect. Atchom (talk) 04:04, 24 November 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Seely

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

One significant role in A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child isn't enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources. Wikipedia is not meant to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to fail nactor, I can't find anything of note he's done on imdb, i checked his films and he had small parts. Szzuk (talk) 20:09, 26 November 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. Clear consensus that this fails WP:NPROF, WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E and/or WP:NOTNEWS. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Mehta

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

Per WP:BLP1E as most of the coverage is about his being dismissed from Acadia University over a controversy. Does not seem to meet WP:NPROF. Nothing else substantial to confirm inclusion per WP:GNG. Hitro talk 08:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His career prior to his firing doesn't seem to meet WP:PROF. (Assistant and associate professors are seldom wiki-notable, and I can't find anything which makes him an exception.) You don't get an encyclopedia article just because you were fired for doing a bad job. Controversies come and go, and we shouldn't mistake the endless self-duplication of the Internet outrage machine for reliable coverage. XOR'easter (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the time frame for the decision? Would a month be alright? I created the article as a stub and haven't worked at all to beef it up. Is there any harm in leaving it there for some time, so as to have a relaxed discussion, and to let the article grow if it is going to grow?CountMacula (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions usually run for one week, unless a consensus fails to form during that time, in which case they can be re-listed. Three weeks is the maximum, which (a) doesn't happen often and (b) mostly happens if the topic is so niche-interest that nobody commented at all during the first two weeks. On the other hand, articles can be incubated pretty much indefinitely as subpages of your user page or in Draft space. XOR'easter (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found nothing to show he meets any of the notability criteria at WP:NPROF and all of the coverage appears to be about his firing, which makes this a case of WP:BLP1E and/or WP:NOTNEWS. I see no indication of WP:GNG being met. Papaursa (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPROF is not a necessary condition for inclusion. The subject happens to be a prof, but can be included for reasons other than his research, namely WP:GNG.CountMacula (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, which is why I also stated that "I see no indication of WP:GNG being met." Papaursa (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not news. This is a non-notable professor. His firing is newsworthy but does not make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

Per WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The article currently has 18 references to reliable sources: at least 10 different authors writing in CBC.ca, the Canadian Press, Global News, and other publishers including national, province-level, local, university, and aboriginal sources. Further, the coverage of Mehta dates from before he was under investigation by Acadia and even before the Beyak controversy and the petitions, sustained over a period of nearly one year (Sept 17, 2017 to Sept 12, 2018) so far. So WP:GNG is clearly satisfied by the article.

WP:NPROF is roughly sufficient but not necessary for inclusion, so need not be discussed further.

Invocation of WP:NOTNEWS above is unexplained and baffling. I see no match between WP:NOTNEWS and this article.

Now, looking into WP:BLP1E: "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event [and two other conditions]." Mehta has been at the center of several events that received significant coverage: 1) controversial positions taken by Mehta, and defense of Beyak, 2) investigations by Acadia, 3) cancellation of the panel discussion at McMaster, related to Mehta's involvement, and 4) the dismissal of Mehta by Acadia and the rationale for it. Per WP:WI1E: "What is one event? ... Definitionally, an event is an "occurrence of social or personal importance". That is, a single specific act that has taken place with a defined beginning and end, which may last for a second or two, or multiple days." I emphasize: "a single specific act that has taken place", not a hypothetical event that might take place in the future. The coverage of Mehta before the dismissal was in the context of various controversies raised by Mehta, not any single event, and the dismissal was no more than hypothetical--not yet an event--at the time of that early coverage. Therefore one of the three conditions necessary for WP:BLP1E fails, and WP:BLP1E itself fails.

Failing WP:BLP1E, WP:GNG provides for inclusion.CountMacula (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: CountMacula (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

No, the article does not currently have "18 references to reliable sources". Many of the sources are redundant with one another, but there are more fundamental problems. One is WP:PRIMARY and counts little if at all towards notability (interviews are always questionable in this regard, and those in student newspapers even more so, since they do not indicate the wider world taking an interest in the subject). The College Fix has all the earmarks of a flagrantly political source that should not be treated as reliable on this topic. The article claims that "another panel member had refused to participate after learning that Mehta was involved"; no reliable source confirms this. According to The Hamilton Spectator, "Ayaz would not say which panellist withdrew in protest and which panellist's presence was deemed objectionable." The College Fix, after glowingly describing Mehta as a "free-speech crusader", mentions him only briefly as one of multiple would-be participants, quoting a tweet of his that has since been deleted (and is thus not verifiable). A passing mention in an unreliable source — there's no case for notability there. All we're left with is an event that was scheduled to happen on a college campus, and didn't. In other shocking developments from the university, the food in the dining hall is horrible, and students were late with their homework and asked for extensions.

Likewise, online petitions are scarcely noteworthy. I could start a petition today to have Mehta direct Guardians of the Galaxy 3, and it would get signatures. That's the Internet for you. (Back in the day, a pickle got 1.5 million Facebook fans because somebody wanted it to be more popular than Nickelback.) The existence of a couple local-interest news items about it elevates the story, but not by a whole lot. At most, they indicate that if the article deserved to exist, then a brief mention of the petitions as part of the background to his dismissal would not be undue weight.

In short, I'm still just seeing "area man loses job for doing job badly". The investigations are part of the dismissal story, and would again at most be background, if that story were worth having an article about. Trying to make one controversy into multiple "events" doesn't help the article's case.

Oh, and lifting lengthy statements verbatim from sources (e.g., Mark Mercer, president of the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship stated that Mehta's views may be unpopular but they do not constitute an attack on anyone; years of teaching the large sections of the required introductory psychology courses, Acadia had changed his teaching allocation so that he would be teaching smaller courses) is plagiarism even if the sources are provided. Academic dishonesty raises the concern that the article would have to be razed and rebuilt from scratch even if the topic were notable. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for the innuendo of academic dishonesty, nothing in the article goes beyond WP:Plagiarism#Copyrighted_sources_only, which, while improper, is explicitly not considered dishonesty: "Here the editor is not trying to pass the work off as their own". But of course having learned the importance of in-text attribution (as opposed to footnotes alone), I will try to remedy the defects indicated. Note also what is not plagiarism: "phrases that are the simplest and most obvious way to present information ... lack sufficient creativity to require attribution." applies to "Mark Mercer, president of the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship", approximately half of one of the phrases mentioned. Further, I note that neither of the mentioned phrases is a "verbatim" quote, as claimed. Each one has some differences. To whatever extent the editor is honest and acting in good faith, I appreciate the correction, and, again, I will try to remedy the defects indicated.

On redundancy of sources: of course there are references to multiple sources covering a given event: that is required for WP:GNG. But in those cases the material comes from different writers and publishers. They are not for example, identicle wire-service articles reproduced on multiple websites. "Redundancy" needs to be clarified.

The petitions mentioned in the article are not cited directly. They are important story elements in reliable sources, supporting general notability.

I don't concede the remaining supposedly-disqualifying claims above against the sources, but if the claims do stand, the remaining sources are more than sufficient for WP:GNG.CountMacula (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The text you copied goes well beyond the bounds of the "simplest and most obvious way to present information", and your modifications were minimal. For example, said a two-person committee would make recommendations after determining whether there were breaches or threats against Mehta's academic freedom is practically identical to said a two-person committee will review Acadia's investigation to determine if Mehta's academic freedom was breached or threatened and then make recommendations [69]. XOR'easter (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both the CAUT spokesman and the author of the CBC.ca article apparently took the text in question directly from the primary source: https://www.caut.ca/content/ad-hoc-investigatory-committee-examine-situation-professor-rick-mehta-acadia-university Maybe you could suggest a better way to say it.CountMacula (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My honest, good-faith advice would be to wait until that investigation all shakes out, and try writing an article then. It is conceivable that sustained interest (including, say, coverage of whatever career Mehta picks up next) will carry him above the notability bar. Six months or a year from now, the people who have argued for deletion here may have cause to change our minds. It's been known to happen. XOR'easter (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well thanks for that, but I'm interested in this plagiarism issue. The way I look at it (I guess the same as the spokesman and the author) is that the meanings of "breach", "threat", "academic freedom", "recommendations", etc. are all essential to the overall meaning of the story: changing them would change the story. Really I would like to know what you think is the best way to convey the information ethically.CountMacula (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Literally none of those terms are "essential to the overall meaning of the story". Echoing committee-speak jargon is not what Wikipedia is here for. In some hypothetical future version of this article, a sentence might begin, "The Canadian Association of University Teachers formed a committee to inquire into the matter, which eventually concluded that...". But we are months or years away from being able to finish that sentence — another indication that this article is, at best, too soon. XOR'easter (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Oh, and WP:WI1E is an essay, not a policy. WP:BLP1E is a section of a policy. We have to follow policy, but we are under no obligation to treat the particular phrasing of any essay as binding. (That particular essay is almost a decade old and has scarcely been invoked in all that time, so we can hardly say that it's a central concern of the Wikipedia community. Its Talk page was last commented upon in 2009. People haven't even taken enough notice of it to argue about it.) If anything, this case most closely resembles that of Scott Janke, whom WP:WI1E mentions as an example case that did end with deletion. As it says, "Being fired was one event". XOR'easter (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second addendum I noticed you asked on my Talk page about "the process by which a deleted article goes into "incubation" as a userspace draft and is then reinstated as an article". Sorry for missing that; I generally try to answer questions I get on my Talk page, but this one must have gotten lost amid multiple notifications, or something (I didn't notice it until I was archiving old discussions last night). Anyway: pages that are actually deleted aren't generally put into Draft space, since re-creating deleted articles is generally frowned upon. However, "draftifying" an article as an alternative to deletion happens sometimes. It's not a common outcome, though, in my experience; for example, this archive records only two instances in academics-related deletion discussions since April 2017. XOR'easter (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll try to look into that.CountMacula (talk) 22:53, 26 November 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)} 15:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anatolii Peshko

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

The same article in Ukrainian wiki has been created by the same users (and then deleted) because of severe lack of notability and self-promotion: all the 'academies' listed are actually NGO registered under Ukrainian law as non-profits, not scientific organizations, not institutes - not connected to actual science in any way. Many medals and other regalia are awarded on a 'membership' basis, thus rendering them insignificant as well FlamebergUA (talk) 13:39, 18 November 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 November 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, he is not notable. --Shmurak (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is plainly a pile of extreme advertorial promotionalism, formatted much more like a résumé than a proper encyclopedia article — it's so bad, in fact, that I can't make heads or tails of whether he has a credible notability claim or not. But if even the Ukrainian Wikipedia has deleted it, then I suspect he really doesn't. And far too many of the footnotes are simply reduplicated and retriplicated and retentimesicated repetitions of other footnotes, so the fact that there are 132 footnotes here doesn't mean there are 132 distinct references — for example, 24 of them are repetitions of a single PDF file that was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and then deleted as a copyright violation. And another three footnotes are to articles on Вікіпедія, which I don't need to be very fluent in Cyrillic to recognize as invalid WP:CIRCULAR referencing to ourselves. And if that's the kind of stunts that people are pulling to get this article "referenced", then I don't think I need to wait for a Ukrainian speaker to tell me whether the rest of the Ukrainian-language footnotes are reliable sources or not either. Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 20 November 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)} 15:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CSE Games

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

Article on an Ontario corporation that publishes NHL and NFL simulators has had no WP:INDEPENDENT sources for the preceding 13 years. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books) fails to unearth any RS. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 05:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 05:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 05:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 05:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find the significant independent coverage of this company that is required to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Papaursa (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be advertising/promotion only, can't find any independent coverage to establish notability. --DannyS712 (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Fabergé and the Adorables

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

Full disclosure, I'm the original creator of this, back in 2007 when our notability criteria for bands and musicians were very different than they are today. At the time, CBC Radio 3 was accepted as a chart that satisfied WP:NMUSIC #2 -- however, that criterion has been tightened up in the intervening decade, and now deprecates non-IFPI certified single-network charts. Unfortunately, however, there's just no other notability claim here at all, and no strong reliable source coverage about them besides dead links from R3 itself. They simply don't have any valid claim to passing NMUSIC as it stands in 2018. Bearcat (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Arguably satisfies WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC via [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76]. Some coverage is of members' later activities - article may be better refocused on Fabergé himself. --Michig (talk) 08:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 14:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 19 November 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) 07:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 2019 Pan American Games – Men's tournament

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

Way too early for this. No teams have qualified yet (except the host), fully of empty tables. There is past precedence for this:[77] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of the two qualifying tournaments began this week. It makes little sense to have one without the other. The event itself is less than a year away. TheBigJagielka (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 14:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One team has qualified, two more will before the end of this AfD. It's not WP:TOOSOON anymore. Smartyllama (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Three teams have qualified. It's not WP:TOOSOON anymore. Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Three teams have qualified with more to be qualified this week. Pennwood711 (talk) 16:25, 20 November 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 speedy redirect to 2018. page creator redirected, and is doing something different at 2018 in politics and government (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 in the world

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

WP:CFORK of numerous other pages, most blatantly 2018. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Article fulfils valuable role as a timeline of 2018, in compiling and providing overview of notable world events in 2018. --Sm8900 (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC) comment withdrawn.[reply]
2018 also does this. What does your article do that 2018 doesn't? ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 05:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
excellent question, thanks. the article 2018 in the world specifically focuses upon items that are important to world affairs specifically, according to a set of specific topical areas. it is possible that perhaps the entry should be renamed with a more informative title to make this more clear, such as "2018 in the world by topic," or "2018 in world affairs," to make this more clear.

basically the intent was to construct a timeline of 2018 for the world, that would focus less on individual news items, and focus more and mainly on actual events within world diplomacy, banking, etc., in contrast to the 2018 article, which is worthwhile precisely because it includes numerous specific events such as sporting events, individual incidents, attacks, etc. again, perhaps the article "2018 in the world" should be renamed to to make this more clear. --Sm8900 (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree this article is a redundant subset of 2018. I'm trying to understand the argument for moving put forth by User:Sm8900, but I don't think that "world affairs" is a very useful descriptor. It could be argued that all the events on 2018 are already world affairs. On the "2018 by topic" front, we already have tons of articles that comprise "2018 by topic" as listed in this navbox. We are lacking a 2018 in international relations page, but I think a move would be inappropriate because the scope of the current article is much larger. BenKuykendall (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Concur by author. hmm, good points. I have some ideas on an alternate approach. I will delete this article and give it some more thought. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:55, 19 November 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)} 15:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Santangelo

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

Fails WP:Pornbio. There's not much assertion of notability here and the sourcing isn't very good either. AniMate 03:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails notability guidelines; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: independent reliable sources Pink News Metro Star Observer -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Willthacheerleader18 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Only one of those articles even mentions one of his stage names, and he is also not the subject of any of the articles. AniMate 17:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the coverage is WP:BLP1E for the didgeredoo act and therefore fails WP:BASIC with temporary coverage, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:46, 25 November 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barrio Canlubang

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

Fails WP:NGEO and WP:GNG. hueman1 (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Obviously passes WP:NGEO. What is nom thinking? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this topic obviously passes WP:NGEO. The relevant portion (WP:GEOLAND) of that guidelines says the notability of neighborhoods should be considered on a case by case basis and need "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources", which is clearly not the case with the current state of the article. If you are aware of reliable sources that fit that criteria, please add them to the article. If you are unable to do so, I think the page should be deleted. Slideshow Bob (talk) 13:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GEOLAND which says officially recognised populated places are presumed notable. The previous comment is a misrepresentation of the gujdeline Atlantic306 (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Charged GBH. Merge then redirect. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Truly Warped

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NALBUM ~~with insufficient mention or sourcing available for a suitable redirect/merger with the artist (Charged GBH)~~. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC); struck/updated 07:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge/redirect to Charged GBH. There's an Allmusic review ([78]), a group review from Record Collector ([79]), and a few other pieces of very brief coverage online ([80], [81], [82], [83]), likely more in print from the time of the album's original release, but as it stands this coverage could perhaps be summarised briefly in the article on the band and this redirected there. Why we would need a quantity of coverage to have a redirect is a mystery to me. --Michig (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Michig: Me too. What I meant was that I didn't see enough on the album in the band's article for a redirect to make sense for readers. That said, I see what you mean and would not be opposed to a merge/redirect combo. I have struck that part of the nomination as I no longer agree with it myself. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Charged GBH. I don't see any significant coverage apart from a review in AllMusic. The other review is insignificant and the rest are passing mentions, not enough to satisfy WP:NALBUM. Very little of the content warrants merging since track lists aren't normally given in band's article, and at most a single sentence may be added to the band article. That said, I do realise that it is harder to source information on albums released in that period since many simply aren't archived on the internet making it harder to search. Therefore, keep the edit history, and when more sources are found, the article can be restored and expanded. Hzh (talk) 14:33, 24 November 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 Withdraw nomination. (non-admin closure) ManWithDrink (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Carotta

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't believe that this subject is notable. Alot of puff pieces. Alot of dead links. ManWithDrink (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging TenPoundHammer who wrote some of his reasons here User:TenPoundHammer/AFD — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManWithDrink (talk • contribs) 21:23, 12 November 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 November 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can anyone please look at this AfD? Please look @Spinningspark, David Gerard, Legacypac, and Bearcat: Thanks!. ManWithDrink (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject seems notable to me. Not the most notable TV producer ever but reasonable. I notice several very experienced editors have gone to town on the page to pare it down without seeking deletion, which suggests they also feel this is a viable topic originally written in a problematic way. Legacypac (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment your actually quite right Legacypac. Can I please withdraw this nomination? I didn't look at the sources clearly before. My fault. --ManWithDrink (talk) 01:06, 23 November 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.