Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 8 November 10 November >

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.

Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 02:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Ebony Cavallaro

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

Subject not notable. 2 of 3 sources are social media pages. I.am.a.qwerty ( talk) 23:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Disregard - Accidentally hit XFD button instead of CSD. I.am.a.qwerty ( talk) 23:52, 9 November 2017 (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 McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet#Switzerland. With a selective merge.  Sandstein  19:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

F/A-18C Mock-up MAGO

AfDs for this article:
F/A-18C Mock-up MAGO (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The mock-up is a training device as you can find on every airport in the world. The encyclopaedic value is not more than that of a random fire truck of fire extinguisher Recreation of the earlier removed F/A-18C Mock-up that was deleted conform Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F/A-18C Mock-up The Banner  talk 21:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • delete - two individual installations, not a generic model, nor particularly notable and individual installations. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    The arguments that they are "as you can find on every airport in the world" and also "not a generic model" are inconsistent with each other. The "delete" camp cannot have it both ways. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 11:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP it is an important saefty tool and complex military hardware. It is NOT a training device like you can find on every airport, it is far more complex and the two crafts are very unique. BTW also articels about such Trainigtools are encyclopaedic value. Also this articel is only nominated here because of wikihounding and stalikng from The Banner against me.. The article is existing since some time but just a few h after Steelpillow left a message about this on my talkpage The Banner nominated it for deletion. this is no coincident this is missuse of AfD!!! FFA P-16 ( talk) 22:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    • My friend, this is not even your article. So what is the fuss about? The Banner  talk 23:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
      • @The Banner I am not your Friend.. because you are hunting me mobbing me since years.. You knew very well what I talk about. Since years you are follow me and you are trying to sabotage everyting. So there is an article you don't care about, but as soon as smeone drop one word about it on MY talkpage you nominat this article in just a few h for deletion.. So only because of your sick wikihundig of me should this AfD get cloesd asap. FFA P-16 ( talk) 23:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
        • I am sorry to say, FFA P-16, that you and your sockpuppets, including the creator of this article, are now blocked for sockpuppetry. Too much screaming about how vile I am and see the flight of the boomerang... The Banner  talk 15:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. These are not notable outside of being 'training aids for Hornets', and while they probably are worthy of a paragraph (tops) in the aircraft's article, there is insufficient notability for an indepedent article. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    I have just added a paragraph to the F/A-18 article section on Switzerland. If this option is to gain consensus, this AfD needs to stay open long enough to see if it sticks. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 19:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Since the previous AfD for F/A-18 Mock-up, the Swiss Air Force have updated their official registry of aircraft. These two installations are included and have officially been allocated unique aircraft registrations ( tail numbers). They are even described in the registration list as "Boeing F/A-18C Hornet (Hugo Wolf)", i.e. as Wolf-manufactured copies of the American-built flight-capable machines. [1] They are thus not so much generic training equipment as non-flight-rated aircraft. I have also added to the present article two more sources for notability, which the previous AfD discussion missed. One is a piece in a major Swiss journal, the Berner Zeitung, which goes way beyond the "look, a big thing in the road" journalism previously cited. [2]. The other is from the specialist journal Allgemeine Schweizerische Militärzeitschrift. [3](pdf) (Translation of sorts, here). I have searched for similar information on any other "training device[s] as you can find on every airport in the world" claimed by the OP and I have found none. Unless someone can actually find some, the counter-claim (made by their manufacturer) that these models or mock-ups represent a unique approach to ground crew training, cannot be dismissed. Rather, the growing number of sources discussing these two "models" appears to support their unusual notability among training aids. (I disapprove of the current article title, but that is another issue.) — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 11:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Merge and Redirect per Bushranger. If it's kept, it would need to be rewritten entirely by someone fluent in English. - BilCat ( talk) 13:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: You know, I thought this looked familiar, and then after a bit of reminding I went and looked. And I wasn't losing my mind: this same article has been deleted before, and it was recreated following a consensus for deletion by the same article creator under a different title in what can easily be seen as an attempt to evade scrutiny with regards to the fact he was recreating an article deleted at AfD. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Just another aviation training aid of which they are lots around and hardly of note per the deletion of the original article. This role has mainly been done by surplus real aircraft but more synthetic aircraft are are around. The fire training rig at Heathrow has been on many television programmes in the UK over the years and a similar device is at Gatwick but they dont merit an article. Another point made further up the UK has many training aids and simulators that are allocated military serials and the simulators and trai ning aids in the Netherlands are given unique civil registration marks (a 787 simulator is PH-BHQ for example). MilborneOne ( talk) 20:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    @ MilborneOne: PH-BHQ appears to be a genuine 787 on order: e.g. [4]. There is a flight simulator, which is a typical 3-axis indoor cockpit simulator. [5] Given this apparent slip of yours, are the websites which think it is an order for a real craft the ones who are mistaken? Can you give some specific examples of other airfield-based ground crew training simulators which carry unique aircraft registration markings? i.e. not just software packages or wrecked airframes used for fire training (I have been trying to find evidence supporting the "not special" claim among editors here and so far I have failed). — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 03:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • withdrawn vote It would appear to just about fail WP:GNG dubious – discuss so policywise it is borderline citation needed, but there really isn’t anything special about it, and given the other comments here and the fact it has been deleted before, I am voting delete. 10:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver ( talk • contribs)
    @ A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver: Cited independent sources include respected journals, both news and trade. There is no doubt that in Switzerland this topic is notable. In what way does it fail English-language GNG? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 04:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I assume you mean the de-wiki version, if it passed GNG then why is everyone !voting delete? I suspect part of the issue is that we normally don't have articles for individual aircraft unless they are really really special even Air force one does not merit individual articles for the individual planes. Dysklyver 09:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The stability of the de version does help illustrate the notability evidenced in German-language reliable sources, but really I am referring to that body of sources itself. Two simulators are currently operational, so this is an article about an operational type not an individual machine. In any case, the English Wikipedia has long allowed articles for aircraft types where only a single example was built, sometimes where the design never got off the drawing-board. It all depends on what reliable sources say. You cannot sustain a "fails GNG" argument without reference to the sources put forward in support of notability. Did you actually check out the two secondary ones I recently added to the Bibliography? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 10:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I have not checked the new sources, no one here has actually read some of the sources, because they are both offline and in German. No one here has previously explained it is actual type of simulator well enough for me to understand that, I was, like most here i expect, under the impression this was a modified training aid. I think this AfD is descending into a mockery, little more than a pile on of people who don't understand the topic and can't read the sources. I apologies for having been one of those people and have withdrawn my vote. Dysklyver 11:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your honesty, I appreciate it. However, the new sources are in fact all online and linked to both from the article and from my "keep" vote above. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 13:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Um yes, it would be more accurate for me to say, some of the oldsources are offline / in German, and that I hadn’t checked the new sources. I will note also I can't deal with your PDF file links, although others might. Dysklyver 15:25, 13 November 2017 (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 clear. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark ( talk) 05:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Jefferson Davis Park, Washington

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

This article confuses the removal of markers from Highway 99 with this later controversy, blending the timeline of both. This belongs merged into the Jefferson Davis Highway article, not as an undue separate piece. Anmccaff ( talk) 21:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: The highway is only tangentially related to the park. Additionally, the Jefferson Davis Highway page is attempting to be all-encompassing of all events that take place on the never official highway; the controversy of the removal of the markers is not related to the current controversies. Nihlus 21:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
And yet the "unrelated" marker removal takes up the majorty of the article. Anmccaff ( talk) 21:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Stripping it back to what is separate from the marker removal would leave a stub of questionable notability. Anmccaff ( talk) 21:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, a separate and notable subject. This Jefferson Davis Park is a creation from 2007 and though it centers on the Old Highway 99 marker stones; the Son of Confederate Veterans, that run established the park and operate the park, did so for the express purpose of awareness and education of the public for the contributions of Jefferson Davis to the Pacific Northwest. [6] This has nothing to do with what the Daughters of the Confederacy intended when they established the stone markers in 1939. The controversy surrounding the park that made national news twice in August [7](2017) and October [8](2017) further speaks to the need to include the park as a separate article. C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 00:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
If that is the case, then why is the majority of the article about events from before 2007, which legitimately might be covered at the JDH article? Anmccaff ( talk) 00:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
And, more importantly, why does the link you supplied also concentrate on the history of the JDH? Anmccaff ( talk) 00:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
First of all, these Sons of Confederate Veterans, live in the past and wish to preserve the legacy of 'the glorious cause'; so it is not unreasonable that the bulk of their website is about the past. Secondly and to your point is that this is a new story. When all traces of the Jeff Davis Highway were finally removed in 2007 from public lands, that's when the story of this park begins, in 2007. Much of this article from the lead to the ending is to give context to the vandalism, death threats and actions of Ridgefield city in seeking the removal of the markers from the Clark County Historical Registry. The city and county governments wanting to distance themselves from the park and all it stands for; in 2017, after such moved were rejected in 2007, this shift in local policy is note worthy as it not only made regional news, but national news. C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 01:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment far from a snow keep, how is this not a WP:A10 speedy delete? It's a nearly new article which is substantially a duplicate of material in another article. Anmccaff ( talk) 05:24, 16 November 2017 (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) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Lap

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

The article is a dictionary definition contradicting WP:NOTDICT. A WP:BEFORE search found only online dictionary sources (not enough for WP:N) and will likely remain a WP:Permastub. Also, the disambiguation page has very similar content to this stub so this article should be deleted and replaced by the disambiguation page. - KAP03( Talk • Contributions • Email) 20:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

keep or merge . A distinct part of human anatomy. If you think the article has no chance to grow, the proper solution is to merge somewhere. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
P.S. It seems that you misunderstand the meaning of WP:NOTDICT. This article is about a thing, not about a word. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
P.P.S. Moving the DAB page here might be a good idea. You may want to request a page move. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:21, 10 November 2017 (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) Lepricavark ( talk) 05:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Helen Preece

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

In the nine years that this article has existed it has gone from being a two-line stub with two sources to a two-line stub with three sources. The subject existed - and the photograph is fascinating - and no doubt had a fascinating life, but neither her nor her father are notable today. Ashley Pomeroy ( talk) 18:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Ryan Catterick

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that Subjects fails WP:NFOOTBALL as has not played in a fully professional league, and no indication topic has received enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 18:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 18:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:46, 9 November 2017 (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  19:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Green Antivirus 2009

Green Antivirus 2009 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is here an apparent complete lack of notability. This was just one of many rogue security software programs, and the only thing worth mentioning about it in specific compared to them - the fradulent charity claim - is already mentioned in that article. The Bushranger One ping only 02:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 04:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist un Eins uno 17:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 05:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply

UK charity salaries of CEOs

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

Compliments to the creator for his/her research and table-formatting efforts, but this is the beginnings of investigative journalism, not a wikipedia article. No context or lead, just a table of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. PROD (by another editor) was previously removed. Martinp ( talk) 12:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nominator. A collection of WP:OR which presents data without context. Also of dubious statistical merit (listing one charity CEO's 2012 salary with that of the CEO of a different charity in 2017 doesn't tell us very much) and the inclusion criteria are not stated (there are over 185,000 charities in the UK so on what basis have the 21 in the article been selected?). Neiltonks ( talk) 14:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Are you nuts ? This is the only modern collaborative resource of it's kind. It is an update on: https://www.theguardian.com/society/salarysurvey/table/0,12406,1042677,00.html This table took hours of research. The purpose was to discourage people have little money themselves, from giving money, without realising that they would probably need it to maintain their own health moreso. I think it would be very unwise to delete this. There are many articles around Wikipedia which are simply tables. I started with 21 major charities, under the impression people would add more over time. If you are worried about original research, the last column can be cut. Tetriminos ( talk) 20:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply

User:Tetriminos, I have a great deal of respect for the hours of research and editing this took. But I'm afraid your reply amplifies my point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collaborative research space to jointly Develop Good Stuff, even update and expand data published elsewhere. There are plenty of such collaborative spaces around (though since this is not my field I don't know what would be a good fit for this, and of course such spaces tend to be less publicly top of mind than WP). Some of them, in some fields, are even wikis and use wikipedia markup language so your time spent formatting this would not be lost. I do regret that I'm upsetting your apple cart, and I'm pretty sure it's good apples. Just this is not what Wikipedia is for. Martinp ( talk) 08:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Hmm well it seems there's plenty of tables of statistics on Wikipedia, so I don't see how it's a bad fit:
/info/en/?search=Woody_Allen_filmography
/info/en/?search=List_of_British_monarchs
/info/en/?search=List_of_Donalds
/info/en/?search=List_of_South_Park_episodes
/info/en/?search=List_of_French_football_champions
/info/en/?search=List_of_Emmerdale_characters
/info/en/?search=List_of_EastEnders_characters
/info/en/?search=List_of_Coronation_Street_characters
/info/en/?search=List_of_people_from_Jersey
^ And the above list could go on and on and on.....
Are the above articles really more precious, valuable, and important than propagating the knowledge that the boundary between charity and business is smaller than some realise, in a capitalistic society ? As I said before, poorer members of society should be particularly aware of this, and nothing makes things more clear than raw numbers.
Or maybe we should just be reading about [British TV soap opera] Emmerdale characters.......... ?

    • I don't see how it's a bad fit - Please read WP:LIST, and you will probably have a better understanding. Staszek Lem ( talk) 23:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist un Eins uno 17:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:43, 9 November 2017 (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  19:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Rudy Moise

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

Unsuccessful political candidate Rathfelder ( talk) 10:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist un Eins uno 17:47, 9 November 2017 (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  19:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Mark Elworth Jr.

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

trivial local publicity for unelected political candidate y. Not everyone who wants to legalize marihuana is notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Subject was Libertarian Party candidate for Governor of Nebraska, nominated by petition, and Third Party candidate for Vice-president, nominated by petition to appear on ballots in two states, Iowa and Minnesota. Subject is notable for founding the Nebraska Legal Marijuana Now Party, and has been profiled by the Omaha World-Herald, among others. (Also making news for non-political community volunteer work.) Recent activities of ballot-access petitioning organizational work continue to be notable, and article is little more than a stub that can be expanded to bring up to date. -- The Hammer of Thor ( talk) 15:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    replythe trouble is the lack of significant coverage, the not meeting the GNG, the not meeting of NPOL. Candidates are not notable just for running. nor are his other political activity evidence of notability. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 16:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Neither being a third-party candidate for governor nor being a minor-party candidate for vice-president of the United States constitutes an automatic inclusion freebie per WP:NPOL, but there's no strong evidence of preexisting notability for other reasons being shown here. And the sources listed above by The Hammer of Thor aren't bolstering the case for inclusion, either: Independent Political Report, Ballot Access News and Palisade Community are WordPress blogs, not reliable sources, and every last one of the others just glancingly namechecks Elworth's existence in the process of being about something else. Which means that exactly zero of them count a whit toward getting him over WP:GNG: we require coverage in which he's the subject, not just coverage of other things which happens to mention his name. Bearcat ( talk) 20:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply

note maintaining previous position after considering later comments. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 20:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • These are nine sources of additional information for the article. None alone intended to convey notability. Four of the nine are blogs, at least one of which is credibly authored however. Five of them are reliable sources. These are extras on top of the dozen or so references already in the article and elsewhere on Wikipedia. -- The Hammer of Thor ( talk) 03:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Subject is notable since 2000 for work with the Green Party. And later petitioning for the Libertarian Party, which helped him to earn the Libertarian Party nomination for Governor. However, subject is most notable for founding the Marijuana Party of Nebraska. He has led successful petition drives in the past, and the failed petition drive he led in 2016 was notable in particular for its failure. Keep. -- The Hammer of Thor ( talk) 21:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply
For the second time, you only get to "vote" once in an AFD discussion. You can comment as many times as you like, but you don't get to restate the "keep" vote that you've already given — and just to clarify, since you clearly went with the wrong takeaway from the first time I addressed that with you in this discussion: it is not okay to restate your keep vote just because you italicize the word "keep" instead of bolding it. The problem isn't whether you format the revote it in bold text or not — the problem is the making of any followup revote at all. Bearcat ( talk) 22:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I think you're being petty about a typo. Please assume good faith. Striking through someone's comment is like talking over them, an impolite behavior. No one is voting more than once. -- The Hammer of Thor ( talk) 01:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Actually, when you write the word K**P in block letters on its own twice in separate entries, that's voting twice. Striking it out. Just leave it struck out please, to prevent confusion. It is very common practice to strike duplicate votes, look around. 104.163.155.95 ( talk) 02:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Block letters? Confusing? If you say so. -- The Hammer of Thor ( talk) 03:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Reply Yes. Notability requirements are met. Elworth is the "subject" of the articles in reliable sources including: NET News Public Radio, Lincoln Star Journal, KETV7 ABC News, Omaha World-Herald, and Fox42 KPTM TV News. -- The Hammer of Thor ( talk) 21:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • No, he's not, at least not if the links you provided above are the "proof" of it. In each and every one of those links, the subject is something other than Elworth himself, and Elworth merely happens to have his existence namechecked as a bit player. Being named in a source is not necessarily the same thing as being the subject of that source. And even if he were the subject of any of those sources, it takes quite a lot more than just a handful of local coverage to make someone notable — everybody who'd ever been a non-winning candidate in any election anywhere could always show five pieces of local coverage, so what we would require is nationalized coverage demonstrating that he's substantially more notable than most of the other half a million or more people who've been non-winning candidates in democratic elections in the past decade. And incidentally, organizing a petition drive isn't a notability criterion in and of itself either — many thousands upon millions of people have done that in the past too. Bearcat ( talk) 22:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist un Eins uno 17:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
reply to comment Much of the "keep" amounts to "I like it overly much". It is not required to comment about every part of the discussion you disagree with. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 00:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  19:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Dingoo

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCT. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 03:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 03:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 03:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Regretful keep. There does not seem to be anything notable, in the colloquial sense of the word, about this old console. So by my own personal interpretation of what Wikipedia notability should be, I don't see the need for us to have an article here. And the article written isn't very good and there's little evidence anyone will improve it anytime soon. However, doing a Google search uncovers enough independent reviews of this console to meet our actual notability guidelines, and we do -- noncontroversially -- have articles on other equally no-longer-relavant gaming consoles. Martinp ( talk) 13:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: What exactly is this thing? I don't see a description of what sort of CPU/GPU it has, and the operating system seems to be at odds with the list of similar products which appear to be native Linux boxes. Is this a totally separate product running its own software (mostly?). I really can't tell. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 13:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The CPU as listed in the sidebox of the article is correct. To the best of my knowledge, there is no separate GPU; only some CPU-based hardware acceleration of specific media formats, as was common for SoCs of that era. It runs a proprietary embedded OS by default, although an alternative firmware exists in the form of a Dingoo-specific Linux distribution (Dingux). 2001:980:A4CA:1:99F9:A8A6:9FA0:BD3A ( talk) 14:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply
It appears to be an off-brand knock off of a handheld video game console ( Game Boy Advance/ Nintendo DS/ PlayStation Portable/ Playstation Vita type device). A lot of smaller companies attempt this sort of thing without much fanfare. While everyone's heard of a "Game Boy", there's lots of little ones out there too that never really take off. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This device in particular is one of the earliest handheld emulators; released around 2009, before smartphone usage became commonplace, it was notable amongst emulation and media enthusiasts for its ability to play a wide variety ROMs and media files without requiring a conversion step, something that was pretty much unheard of at the time. Relatedly, it became popular amongst homebrew hackers due to the relative ease of running alternative software on it and messing with the firmware. I would say that it's historically notable enough (even if just in a niche) to keep around the article; however, I do feel that there are probably too many unsourced sections. To the best of my knowledge they're all correct, but sourcing them may be difficult, as the vast majority of information around this handheld was obtained through informal channels and published in unofficial places, due to the company itself not having a real presence outside of China. 2001:980:A4CA:1:99F9:A8A6:9FA0:BD3A ( talk) 14:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Could only find one reliable source article mentioning the Dingoo significantly. Siliconera article. Fails notability standards for Wikipedia. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 04:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist un Eins uno 17:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  19:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Heather Unruh

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

Subject does not meet notability thresholds, and appears to be notable because her son was allegedly victimized by Kevin Spacey. Even then, the alleged victim was her son, not her. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 17:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The article was created, by me 4 days ago, before she mentioned her son, though I did wonder who she was based on her criticism of Spacey and then thought she would make another good BLP to support the #1Day1Woman project (note that tweet did not mention Spacey, just an "award winning journalist"). There are sufficient sources in this stub to demonstrate her impact in the field of journalism. She has won several notable awards, in particular a "Grand Gracie" national award, and has been reported to have commanded a salary of $300,000 for her TV anchor role but with additional incomes made around $1m p.a. This is remarkably high for a journalist, and is actually a couple of times more than the Prime Minister of Britain makes. More sources and detail could be added, but even as a stub this is sufficient to avoid deletion and meet WP:JOURNALIST. Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 17:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
You mentioned money. I have to ask if we are Wikipedia or if we are Forbes magazine? I don’t think anyone can “buy” their way to Wikipedia by earning enough money. Also, she may be known to some, but to others around the country and world, her name is about as well known as Joe Schmoe. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 18:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Yes, amongst other things I mentioned money, because it's an unusually high salary for a journalist, but not someone who is a celebrity figure within TV journalism. No Wikipedia is not Forbes, but every CEO for a Forbes 500 company should have an article. No, Unruh has not attempted to buy her way on to Wikipedia, I doubt she gives a fig either way. Yes her name is now known around the world, because of the Spacey allegation, but of itself, that's not a reason to delete this article. -- Fæ ( talk) 18:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Just want to clarify. I am not accusing Unruh of buying her way onto Wikipedia. I am merely saying if we make an article simply because someone earns above a certain threshold of money, that someone effectively "bought" their way onto Wikipedia. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 20:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
just a comment. In many areas, value affects cost, such as salary. Unruh would not be able to command the salary she does if tv news organizations didn’t feel she was worth the money. Based on that point alone, she is notable
Comment: looking over WP:JOURNALIST, I found the thresholds:
  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
  3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

I would argue that she has not met threshold 1. People have heard of Sue Simmons, Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw, and Peter Jennings. Do many, many people know of a Heather Unruh? As for thresholds 2 and 3, I don't think she has met that, by any stretch. Threshold 4, her accusations re Kevin Spacey came really, really late in the timeline, well after Anthony Rapp and others. It's only because it's recent that it looks big. Years later, it will become a footnote, IMO. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 21:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

She's not the victim. She's the mother of a victim, and she's probably only known for that. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 20:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Fighting back the tears, here. I'm sure we can all feel for the unnamed son (but not in a Kevin way, of course). Whatever happened to good ol' teen spirit? Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment: Most of the award she received were either regional Emmys (which have been criticized for its award criteria, or lack thereof), or recognition for volunteerism and advocacy, which are given to many others as well. If we are to keep articles based on that, everyone on Earth would be able to get a Wikipedia article. By then, what would separate us from MySpace or Facebook? Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 02:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm on Facebook but I don't have several regional awards, and when the region is a State, that's a huge region; as reductio ad absurdum the comparison does not really work. It remains unclear why you are choosing to ignore the Gracie Award, which is a national award and not given for "volunteerism and advocacy".
Please keep in mind that this stub was created just 4 days ago, and that there are cultural reasons why it is more difficult to source the careers of women journalists and so harder to get these articles off the ground. The fact is that Wikipedia has 1,662 articles relating to women American journalists, but 3,879 about men. Arguing very hard to delete this one, may not be the best thing for the encyclopedia, especially considering that it is to the public benefit for people to be able to read about Unruh on this project at a time when all major newspapers have been quoting her as an important journalist. Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 09:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Before the Kevin Spacey thing, no one outside of a particular region of the US knew who Unruh is, and I highly doubt she is going to be known for her work outside of that region after this, because she is out of the TV business. Outside of Unruh's region, to be brutally honest, her name might as well be an animal call on a 2016 Pixar animated movie. Also, turning this into a debate on sexism and male chauvinism is detrimental and divisive. Also, don't even get started on regional Emmys. There are so many controversies before on how they are run (I've worked in the business). You're basically arguing we allow unqualified articles on Wikipedia because of sexual discrimination. That's detrimental to Wikipedia overall, IMHO. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 18:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment: The recent coverage on Unruh does not meet GNG, in my opinion, because the coverage is about Kevin Spacey or Unruh's son, and not about Unruh. We are conflating Unruh being a conduit to the victim's allegations to Unruh being notable, as if she is the victim. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 00:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
But is it WP:NTEMP, Megalibrarygirl? Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 00:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment: Unfortunately, WP:JOURNALIST begs to differ in the case of TV anchors. Using that logic, we would have to create articles for all the news anchors who worked at KXGN, the smallest TV station in North America. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 02:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I didn't cite JOURNALIST.  Unscintillating ( talk) 09:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Wikipedia's notability is a test to separate standalone topics from those merged.  If you don't want to allow articles on TV anchors, and don't want TV anchors merged to parent articles, I suggest you extend WP:NOT with a WP:NOT guideline.  Otherwise, miniBios of KXGN anchors depends not just on notability, but on whether or not the information has WP:DUE due weight anywhere in the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating ( talk) 09:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment- Boston Globe and Boston Herald are regional papers at best, with no national significance. We are not talking about New York Times and Washington Post here. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 21:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
...I wasn't going to stick my oar in on this, but then I saw this and my jaw literally dropped (and no, this is not the 'new definition' of literal, either). Are you seriously claiming Boston's papers have "no national significance"? - The Bushranger One ping only 09:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Boston Globe is noted to be the 25th most read newspaper in the country. Are you telling me that's a widely read newspaper? Even The Arizona Republic is read more than Boston Globe, and I won't say the Republic is a paper of national significance. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 20:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment- Yes, and thanks for bringing that up. All should be gone, IMO. None of them are notable beyond their small geographical region. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 21:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia notability is defined neither by your personal opinion nor by geographical regions.  I suppose we do see geographical regions of cities used by real estate agents that haven't attracted the attention of the world at large, but the kind of small you seem to be talking about considers the Boston MSA, the tenth largest such area in the U.S., as small.  Do you have standards?  Are you one of these people whose source requirement for GNG is, "more than you have found so far"?  Unscintillating ( talk) 01:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm going to strongly suggest you follow WP:NPA, Unscintillating. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 03:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I also find it rather misleading that you are using MSA sizes to make your point, when it is rather well known that the industry uses DMAs to calculate size. According to the latest data, only ~2,000,000 people watch TV in Boston, at all, and when you take into account that not all watch the news, and not all watch Unruh's station, that pool starts to shrink rapidly. Beyond all else, you have yet to make an argument that Unruh meets any notability requirements, other than being the mother of one of Kevin Spacey's victim. Not here to trivialize that (it is serious), but there are more than one mother of a victim in this case. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 08:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
"Only" two million. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I think you probably know not everyone of those 2 million watch TV, every single second of every day. When you start taking away those who don't watch news at all, and those who don't watch WCVB, not a lot of people are left. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 17:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
It remains unclear why you are choosing to ignore the Gracie Award, which is a national award and not just known to the small number of people living in Boston. Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 10:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Gracie Award's article is noted for possibly not meeting GPG itself. Therefore, I am disregarding the award. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 17:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The GNG is not required in some endlessly self-recursive way. An award should be well known, and the Gracie is regularly reported on by Variety and other professional media/comms related press, so "well known" it is. Please refer to WP:ANYBIO. -- Fæ ( talk) 18:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
So, you're saying this meets ANYBIO because of an award that itself fails GPG? That's like saying something is not faulty because of something that's faulty. I don't agree with your logic in this regard, unfortunately. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 18:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm saying that Wikipedia does not define itself. If you want to claim that the Gracies are not well known, then make that claim but after looking at some news sources. Saying "there ain't no such animal" because you do not find a Wikipedia article is an obvious walled garden. By the way, the article did not "fail GPG", if you want that to happen then put it up for deletion. -- Fæ ( talk) 18:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The argument that Boston's media and market somehow have 'no national signfificance' is entirely nonsensical. And when it comes to policy, WP:JOURNALIST is irrelevant when the subject meets WP:GNG/ WP:BASIC - which she does. There seems to be a heavy movement around AfD these days across multiple genres to argue that if the specialist notability standard is not met, one must delete, GNG be hanged, and that is something that needs to be stamped out posthaste. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Boston's market may be big, but it's not a market that has reech nationally. It's not LA or New York. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 17:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The subject is currently "nationally notable" because of WP:NTEMP, and even then, it's her son that's NTEMP, not her. You are confusing conduit of information with subject. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 17:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I do not see the relevance. WP:ANYBIO does not require that for a Wikipedia article to exist that the subject must be proven to be famous at a national level, nor that we should give proof that millions of people should know their name. If that were true, we would have hardly any articles for academics and I suspect that the vast majority of biographies would have to be deleted. -- Fæ ( talk) 18:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
You misunderstood. I was saying Unruh is not notable because, on top of not meeting GNG, JOURNALIST, and violating NTEMP, she is not the subject of the NTEMP. She was the person who identified the victim that is now the subject of the NTEMP. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 23:45, 15 November 2017 (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) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Mark Llewellyn-Slade

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

Article appears to fail the notability guidelines for biographies. The article revolves around the fact he operates an awards firm (which reads like an advert). Strip out that and all you're left with is the fact that he has commentated on many media outlets but that's it. Vasemmistolainen ( talk) 23:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Comments by the author of the article Mynconish ( talk) 23:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I am looking at Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) and argue that this subject is notable.

  • WP:GNG, WP:BASIC: has received 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. Most of the sources are from major media outlets, such as the Times and CNBC -- not adverts or press releases.
  • WP:NRV: sources are properly referenced, to the best of my knowledge, and are from reliable media.
  • WP:SUSTAINED: He has being getting coverage for several years now. Dates of references range from 2010 to 2017.
  • it is not written like an advertisement, merely listing facts which were stated directly in the sources.

Thanks for considering. Mynconish ( talk) 23:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - satisfies WP:GNG, either as person or his business for being a rather scandalous issue: "selling" highest British honors. Staszek Lem ( talk) 23:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Much to my surprise, the references do show notability. There is often relatively little difference between the person and the firm in professions like this, but I think this would appear more objective if it were adapted to be about the firm. If this is an orangemoody sock, its a considrably better article than usual for them--and considerably better than the deleted version, which showed the usual orangemoody technique of trying to accumulate as many references as possible regardless of their quality. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Visible Government

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

A small group that did indeed present a paper to a Commons committee, I can find no evidence that this apparently defunct group (its official website is not working) ever met WP:NGO, based on Google search results. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:17, 9 November 2017 (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. Overall consensus is for the article to be retained. However, there is agreement in this discussion that the article requires significant copy editing and cleanup to address promotional tone. As such, I have added the {{ Cleanup AfD}} atop the article. North America 1000 20:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Gujarat International Finance Tec-City

Gujarat International Finance Tec-City (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has had a warning for violating WP:NOTADVERTISING all year with no resolution. I was going to see if I could clean it up, but it appears to be too full of content that violates WP:NOTADVERTISING. Violates WP:G11. It looks like a copy paste from a company website, with news updates and awards. It also does not provide any sourcing for most of the information. Anon1-3483579 ( talk) 01:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep. I agree that article is in very poor condition and written like an advertisement. But topic is notable and major project so should not be deleted but rewritten. You may find plenty of news sources referring to it.-- Nizil ( talk) 05:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:NOTFUTURE, WP:G11, and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Nizil It seems to have news sources referring to it, but the development appears to be in very early stages and will be for a while. Another concern I see here is that any properly sourced information is just going to be a project/product announcement which could be against WP:NOTFUTURE. I'm not sure it can remain, as if it were to abide by WP:NOTFUTURE, WP:G11, and WP:NOTADVERTISING, it may be a very short article not worth noting. I'm not saying the GIFT project doesn't matter, but it may not have a place on wikipedia yet. - Anon1-3483579 ( talk) 06:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Anon1-3483579, I have already said that article is in poor shape and looks like an advertisement. It is an underconstruction project and three towers are already built so it can have information on them and other proposals like we do in underconstruction infrastructure projects like Metro rails. The issues here should be is it notable or not to have an article here. And I think it is a major infrastructure project in Gujarat state and should have an article. WP:NOTFUTURE and WP:NOTADVERTISING can be dealt with by cleaning up the article. WP:G11 specifically says "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." So rewriting this article is preferable to deletion.-- Nizil ( talk) 05:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Searching under the article title and "GIFT City," there does seem to be enough English language sources to meet WP:GEOLAND for city districts. I'm aware that there can be advertorial issues in even major Indian dailies, but I still think we have enough coverage in reliable sources, taken as a whole. And of course there's the issue that this is only English and there would be undoubtedly be Gujarati language sources, too. Whatever the issues with the article, I'd say keep. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 15:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article does need significant work, but the subject seems to meet WP:GEOLAND. An alternative to deletion, if it is decided that this should not be its own article, would be to merge it with the article on the larger geographic area. 331dot ( talk) 17:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
331dot, merging with the larger geographical area is a good suggestion. I would support that. The development is far from completed, so I'm not sure it is significant enough to be considered a significant city yet. - Anon1-3483579 ( talk) 18:04, 9 November 2017 (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  19:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

-ismist Recordings

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Non-notable record label. – Miles Edgeworth Talk 15:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:58, 9 November 2017 (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 seems to be interested in the newly offered sources.  Sandstein  19:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Natalie Gal

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

Non-notable person. Currently sourced by dubious sources such as IMDB and primary sources. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 13:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The concerns that there is not enough sourcing to support an article remain unrebutted. The "keep" opinions are basically appeals to WP:CRIN. This is an invalid argument because that page is not a policy or guideline, but a WikiProject page, and therefore does not represent community consensus.  Sandstein  19:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

D. Kodikara

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

Article relies solely on statistical profiles in CricketArchive and Cricinfo which can be classified as routine coverage and therefore fails GNG. Dee 03 14:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - at what point will these nominations stop? Why are we being held hostage as a project by those who despise basic, easy to follow, guidelines? This is becoming a frustration. How have people who have intentionally absented themselves from conversations over notability criteria and first-class cricket suddenly become experts about the same? This is becoming demoralizing for me and for the WP:CRIC project, which is being gradually, and upsettingly, destroyed. Bobo . 18:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep - passes WP:CRIN. Bobo . 18:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I can find nothing to show any form of wider notability for this person beyond their one appearance in a cricket match. The sources provided are database entires rather than substantive sources and tell us that a match that he played in took place, his surname and first initial. We don't have a forename or date of birth and in those circumstances I don't believe that there is any reasonable chance we'll be in a position to verify anything about the person beyond what we currently have at any point in the foreseeable future. If we can't add substantive sources then there's a clear failure of the GNG and several RfC (such as this one and back into the dark mists of time and the establishment of SNG with this one) have made it clear that sports notability criteria only provide a presumption of notability if there is a hope that the GNG will ever be met. If we had more details, say a forename, date of birth etc... and the player could be shown to have played in other cricket matches (i.e. of a non-first-class, List A etc... status) then I might be persuaded that there is a reasonable probability that those sources might exist.
In this case I have a more specific concern beyond these. The chap appears to have batted at number 11 in the batting order for his team but not to have bowled, was not the wicket-keeper and did not take a catch. I must admit that from the scorecard I get the distinct impression from that that he was an emergency fill in making up the numbers rather than someone who might have ever stood a chance to be a regular player for the club. This makes me more firmly of the opinion that we will struggle to ever show notability through the sorts of sources that we need. I would, of course, have no prejudice against the re-establishment of the article if those sources can be shown to exist. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 21:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Thankfully this can not be proven by the sources available and this point can be dismissed as personal opinion in the wake of basic statistical fact. I might as well just claim that I believe he was wearing a purple hat and wellington boots. Bobo . 22:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Also you do realise this "more specific concern" is pretty much the definition of WP:SYNTH, right? - The Bushranger One ping only 06:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I don't think I'm really combining anything from multiple sources am I? I am reaching a conclusion which, as Bobo quite rightly says, I can't confirm. - although I suspect it probably is the case. It's not really that relevant to my argument however and if either of you would like me to strike it I will do. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 07:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Citation needed. Precisely. Please do strike your argument. Bobo . 12:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Done as requested. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 14:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
No you haven't. Try harder. Bobo . 14:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I don't understand - I've done exactly as I said I would. Haven't I? Blue Square Thing ( talk) 15:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
No, the first half of your statement still exists. Bobo . 16:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I was clearly writing about the "more specific concern" as raised by The Bushranger. Anything beyond that is simply you trying to be too clever I imagine :-) Blue Square Thing ( talk) 16:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Please see this RfC which was closed as: There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. Looks like the trout did a WP:BOOMERANG there. Dee 03 07:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Please stop trying to influence people based on your own opinion, Dee. The fact that we have proven that GNG can be proven to be contradictory nonsense based on other guidelines is enough to render both guidelines completely and utterly meaningless. Bobo . 12:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
It is not my opinion. What I quoted above in green is the result of an RfC, which was open for several weeks and had dozens of participants, from a few months ago. Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing and claiming GNG is "nonsense" in every single discussion. This is getting silly. Dee 03 14:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Yes it is your opinion. And yes, GNG is nonsense by the fact that is directly contradicted elsewhere. If you are unwilling to work to brightline criteria simply for the sake of pushing your own regime, you are the problem, not the solution. Bobo . 14:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
It is the result of an RfC. Can you click on the link and read the discussion and stop wasting everybody's time? I'm done with this conversation. Dee 03 14:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Thank you for not addressing my point. Bye. Bobo . 14:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Blue Square Thing. Another virtually empty article based on bare statistics, with sourcing so poor that the person's name cannot be even be determined. The only sources are statistics aggregators CricInfo and CricketArchive, which have been shown not to be independent of each other in the sense that one copies content extensively from the other (or in both directions), and which have been proven to have non-negligible rates of error. These are not good enough for the biography of a presumably living person. I'd support a merger of these raw stats to a suitable list article, but I'm not sure if there is one. Reyk YO! 15:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I mean this entirely seriously and not as an attack. If you're not sure there is a list article, there are two things you can do. Check, and if there isn't one, create one. If you are willing to create a list article containing every single first-class player for a given team on completely NPOV guidelines, do so. The whole problem with the list articles which we have recently seen is that they were slapdash and based entirely on people's POV decisions as to whether the article was deleted or not.
If you create a list article based on the one or two items which you have decided, against fundamental project guidelines, that the article should be deleted, then, as per recent AfD debates, these lists are likely to be deleted. If you are willing to create a list article with every individual who played for the side, then this is the only way these will be seen as being useful. Bobo . 16:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Could you please explain, User:Reyk, where you get the evidence that CricInfo and CricketArchive are not independent of each other and copy from each other, and where they have been "proven" to have "non-negligible rates of error"? I ask because I am a serial, long-term user of both of these sites and do not recognise your description of them. Johnlp ( talk) 18:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, for instance here we discovered that both sources referred to Barinder Sran with the wrong spelling of "Brainder". That's enough to show that one has copied from the other, and that neither has been careful about spellchecking. At other AfDs, for instance this one, we've found out that these statistical aggregators can't always distinguish one player representing multiple clubs from several different, similarly named, people playing for one club each. Reyk YO! 12:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Copying is only one possible explanation for Brainder Sran, and is actually not very likely given that these two websites are direct commercial competitors; a more likely one is that both websites take their information directly from the match scorers' scorebooks, the primary source, which may not be error-free. I know that that is how CricketArchive works and I would be surprised if it was not the case with CricInfo as well, as that has significantly greater resources. The Perera example is not an error: a player of that name played for Old Cambrians in a first-class match, and it is not clear whether this is the same Perera as played for other teams in other matches; both sites wisely refuse to conflate, and therefore have independently created a separate entry for the Old Cambrians' Perera. What else would you have them do? I'm not saying that these sites have no errors (or omissions) and have indeed reported a few to them myself over the years, which they have then amended. But, unlike you, it would seem, I have used these highly trusted sites virtually every day for about 12 years for WP articles and for other projects, and have found very few gaps or errors. You wrote about "proven" "non-negligible rates of error": perhaps you would care to give us some other examples from your own use of the sites. Johnlp ( talk) 14:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Like the others. I do not understand what all the fuss is all about. It is already understood you can not supercede the general notability guideline like it does not exist. Surely, a source of raw statistics does not satisfy the indepth coverage we need nor is it appropriate to depend on for a BLP. If there was anything, and I mean anything, that demonstrates this person was covered adequately and I somehow missed it, I would probably !vote keep. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 17:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete a one source article on someone who nothing is really known about is not worth having. It is high time that the overly permissive inclusion criteria for cricket players be revised. If someone needs two significant roles in notable productions to be a notable actor, how in the world can someone be notable for any role, no matter how insignificant, in just one first class cricket match. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:37, 14 November 2017 (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  19:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Balfour Senior Living

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

promotional article on non=-notable community. I and another eds. removed most of the spam, but there isn't enough left to support the article. Almost every ref is a local press release--based article published in local newspapers; almost every award is also local.

Created by an spa, who would seem to be an undeclared paid editor, judging by the content of the original version. [29] I thought and still think it should have been deleted rather than waste the effort trying to improve as volunteers what others are being paid for and doing incompetently. DGG ( talk ) 15:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep Btw, I tore out a bunch of the pretty useless content out of it as well. I don't disagree much of the coverage is local, but The Denver Post isn't nothing. Surprisingly quite a bit of media over the fact they are doing pot classes, which at the moment seems to be their claim to fame. I also agree the awards carry little merit with me. That said, I think it's references (and there's a few more online) nudge it over the notability edge, although I won't shed any tears if consensus feels otherwise. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:18, 9 November 2017 (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  19:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Kamats Restaurants

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

No evidence of notability. My A7 was declined , on the basis of "claims notability" I consider that puffery, not a genuine statement of significance or importance. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • It seems that Kamat Hotels may well be notable, but not this article subject. It appears to me that this title was chosen for the article on the basis of a cultural cringe, because the restaurants have recently expanded into the West whereas the hotels are, according to the sources that I can find, a pretty major operation in India:
Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 21:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply
I agree the hotels are notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Then maybe the solution is to move this to Kamat Hotels, which is what the references are about? 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 18:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • "...is looking forward to expand its presence by opening 30 more restaurants!"
Lacks notability to boot; WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH fail. Delete. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:10, 15 November 2017 (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 America 1000 01:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Nuvision Entertainment

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

Clearly fails WP:CORP with only one source currently on the article which is just another Wiki. Furthermore the original author has just blank copied from that Wiki (I cannot find the exact copyright details for the site and therefore presume it is copyrighted). Finally I can't see this company ever being notable given it was short lived and produced only a few poorly received games. Vasemmistolainen ( talk) 19:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  • I fixed the "copying" of the website, but I hadn't actually copied from the website. Furthermore, Bimini Run, while not becoming a major hit of a game, was sold in a fair quantity around the world. I have studied early games for years, and I know what I am talking about. I have found multiple references to this company and the games that they produced/were producing. It may not be a hard-hitting Wikipedia page, but I think it still deserves to be existent.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:17, 9 November 2017 (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  19:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Outreach.io

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

This article is promotional, thus making it an egregious violation of our neutral point of view policy. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 20:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi, I'm not sure how this is promotional. This is written in a neutral POV and does not include promotional or leading language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelseyf ( talk • contribs) 21:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as I don't see any reason for this to be notable. The company still seems to be in its early VC-funded stage. The product doesn't have a wide userbase and doesn't seem to be notable. The media coverage is restricted to announcements and Public Relations wires which are picked up by various blogs and interest sites. There isn't any credible coverage about the company by well known media. The Forbes article is one of the many "Forbes lists" and is a pure speculation of the value.-- DreamLinker ( talk) 16:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as corporate spam on a nn business. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:21, 16 November 2017 (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 DMacks ( talk) 17:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Alyas Jovan Panot

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

I'm struggling to see the point of this - a former user talk page moved over to article space. Appears to be an orphaned non-notable TV series with the same name as the primary editor. Coincidence, or blatant hoax? Night fury 13:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Night fury 13:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Night fury 13:40, 9 November 2017 (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  19:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Almon Gunter

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

Verging on NN. Clamed to be a USA track and field sprinter however, cannot find any mention of him on their main webpage. Google search provides little to go on as well. A further dig however on a Yahoo chat room of all places says he was a qualifier for the (what?) Olympics but nothing else. Night fury 13:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Night fury 13:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Night fury 13:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I don't see how that is a strong point against notability. There are a number of academic sources that support inclusion in Florida academic circles, and at least one of those YouTube videos is a directly sourced news station video. If they aren't reliable enough to support specific claims, such as academic accomplishments, that's one things, but how is that ubiquitously indicative of non-notability? - Cam T| C
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. Of the four "keep"s, only one actually discusses reasons for notability and sourcing.  Sandstein  19:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Naomi (actress)

Naomi (actress) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Despite winning a best new starlet award we are left with no meaninful sources as required for a blp. Technical SNG passes do not equate to an article if the SNG is subordinate to GNG and it clearly fails GNG. Delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep "she passes policy, but delete anyway" is not a good argument. We decided to remove porn bios unless they had these awards, to change that, you have to change pornbio first. GuzzyG ( talk) 11:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Would you argue that Mickey Murray is a technical sng pass with no gng value and should be deleted? And if not, then why on this? We shouldn't pick and choose Wikipedia policy for stuff we don't like. GuzzyG ( talk) 12:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
I would actually nominate the Mike Murray article for deletion, if I had not already nominated another today. I would fully urge you GuzzyG to nominate that article. If you do I promise to advocate for its deletion. Wikipedia needs to hold more to the reliable sources rule. If we require multiple significant film roles to make an actor notable, it is beyond bizarre that a sportsperson can be notable with a passing performance in one game. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:PORNBIO, like other SNG's, is meant to offer guidance about things that make it likely that a subject is notable. SNG's augment our general notability guideline, not replace it. She won the award in 2007 but there's a dearth of coverage in reliable sources in the subsequent decade and, since she's apparently left the industry, it's a dearth that's very likely to continue in decades to come. David in DC ( talk) 16:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • I found a mention of Naomi in a 2015 list, published by a Jewish news service ( Jewish Telegraphic Agency), of Jewish porn stars. It sources her birth name and the fact that her father was a rabbi. I've inserted it. But I still don't think that gets us over the GNG hump. David in DC ( talk) 17:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Normally i'd agree but if you were to nominate unsourcable and impossible to write about which severely fails GNG Mickey Murray for deletion the SNG relevant to Ice Hockey, would prevent it from being deleted with some chutzpah about "some sources" of newspapers briefly mentioning him playing.. I just find it funny that only porn get's editors with edit logs of literally months of only nominating pornbios for deletion, but when it comes to other GNG violations they do not care. Porn is in a sticky place on wiki as obviously mainstream sources won't cover it due to religious types and the only things that would cover it are tabloids or trade magazines which get put down as "promotional". Just seems absurd that over 600,000 people view a "non-notable" person's page, as someone who has an excel sheet full of tens of thousands of wikipedia bios that number is very high. GuzzyG ( talk) 17:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Your argument here is an argument for deletion. You just admitted that the subject is not covered in reliable sources, which is exactly what is required to have an article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Passes WP:PORNBIO as best new starlet for avn is a well known and significant award as confirmed by prior consensus in AfDs for Abella Danger Mia Malkova Gracie Glam. The sources support for two paragraphs of content. What more do we need to know about her? Morbidthoughts ( talk) 22:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete total failure of GNG. It is high time we stop using a special carve out to keep an inordinate number of articles on pornographic actresses. Wikipedia has been heavily attacked for the inordinate amount of space devoted to pornographic actresses for years. It is high time we fix this poor decision in coverage, and start removing articles on people who totally fail the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • This is a notability argument without analysis of the alternatives to deletion, WP:IGNORINGATD.  So the post hasn't tried to post a delete argument.  As per WP:N, GNG notability is no different than PORNBIO notability; so failing GNG, in the context here, is irrelevant anyway.  Unscintillating ( talk) 15:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- for lack of reliable 3rd party sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail ( WP:N). Having participated in a number of WP:PORBIO AfDs, my impression is that the SNG in question is largely not credible. That is, a technical pass at the SNG does not necessarily mean that the subject would have garnered sufficient coverage for a stand-alone bio article; see WP:WHYN. It's a "delete" for me in this case. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • WHYN is not a part of the standard, and hasn't been for years.  WP:N is not a content guideline...our core content policies take that role.  WP:N "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow", and chronic grousing against WP:N's subject-specific guidelines does not fall into the category of common sense or an occasional exception.  Common sense is that if some editors are using standard a, and other editors are using standard b, the project will be the victim.  Editors have tried to change PORNBIO, and the community has refused.  Your grousing is an admission that the topic passes WP:PORNBIO as per community consensus, and that you can't refute the evidence.  Unscintillating ( talk) 02:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you NA1000 for reopening. I’d like to bring in The Drv for Lana Rhoades which clearly demonstrates the point that pornbio doesn’t trump gng and that if you can’t source it, a technical pass is no defense. On that basis the keep votes so far are non-policy based and should not be given as much weight in the close as the delete votes. Spartaz Humbug! 21:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The DRV couldn't have discussed sourcing if they wanted to, because (1) the article considered at the RFC/AFD had been deleted and was not temp undeleted for the DRV, and (2) the RFC/AFD closer did not identify BLP issues in the close.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • As shown at the DRV, WP:N places GNG on a level playing field with PORNBIO.  It was also shown in the DRV that a defender of GNG could not explain how to apply the standard, meaning that GNG is as much vaporware as it is a standard.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The DRV raises other questions, one of which is why Spartaz, who last I heard is an administrator, allowed the original RFC/AfD to remain posted in an AFD forum.   Spartaz was also first in line at the DRV, and allowed the DRV to proceed even though the closing administrator of the RFC/AfD had not been contacted.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • It was shown at the DRV that there was consensus at the original RFC that one of the points of evidence satisfied PORNBIO.  It was also shown that no delete !vote presented evidence that the topic failed GNG.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • There were four major procedural errors in the RFC/AFD close identified at the DRV, none of which the DRV closer explained.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment: Those arguments were rejected all but unanimously by the other DRV participants. They're now pretty much a road map to insufficient support for notability claims. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 12:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • User:Unscintillating Since the DRV was closed as endorse and you were the only person arguing otherwise and your arguments remain based on your own understanding of the guidelines that no-one else in the world shares, I really do fail to follow what ever point it is you are trying to make. I also see that once again your argument is supported by ad homs against me that have no relevance to the discussion. Please remove them unless you would like me to find an independent admin at ANI to review them as personal attacks. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 06:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • It was your choice to "bring in" the DRV, and now the DRV discussion has moved to the rule of law.  It is a legitimate question as to why both the AfD and DRV processes continued without administrative intervention.
    Take a look at what WP:PERPOLICY says, "Even if ten editors state an article should be deleted, and one editor states the article should be kept, but the one who wants it kept gives a good argument citing policy, while the other ten give none, this is sufficient grounds for keeping an article."  Unscintillating ( talk) 12:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Funny how those !voting Keep/Speedy Keep have nitpicked over the noms rationale but not one of them have provided any sources to establish whether GNG or PORNBIO is met, Well they've not provided any because there isn't any. – Davey2010 Talk 12:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. as not notable (and with promotional content). Of her three awards, two are explicitly for beginners, and that translates in WP terms as not yet notable Some discussion of her personal sexual interests is not irrelevant in this field, but the extent of it , including the quotation, is promotional for her work. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 15 November 2017 (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 United States House of Representatives elections, 2018#Colorado. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Mark Williams (Colorado politician)

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

Prod removed without comment, not notable as per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:NPOL Gbawden ( talk) 12:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections, 2018#Colorado. Redirects are cheap and it points to what he is "notable" for, while preserving the article history if he wins the election. (And if not, redirects are still cheap.) - The Bushranger One ping only 04:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per The Bushranger. Being an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election is not a notability criterion — a person has to win the election and thereby hold office to clear WP:NPOL, not just be a candidate in it. But this shows no evidence of preexisting notability for other reasons, and the media coverage is not demonstrating any reason why his candidacy could be considered a special case: it's based entirely on the purely run of the mill local coverage that would simply be expected to exist for any candidate in any primary. As always, no prejudice against recreation in November 2018 if he wins the seat, but nothing here constitutes a reason why he would already get a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat ( talk) 18:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Edinburgh Solicitors Property Centre

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

This article came to my attention after a blatant attempt to turn it into pure advertising, and after examining it closely I increasingly came to the conclusion that its apparently impressive list of reliable sources is largely there to make it look important. I removed the "Professional bodies" section which was not about the company at all but just general legal requirements, and then I examined the "Market commentator" section and that's really just a list of links to things the company has said. Anyway, as of this version (permalink), here's my take on the sources:

  1. Just Companies House registration, which every company has (actually a dead link)
  2. A report that the company had turned from loss to profit, which is nothing notable
  3. Essentially the same as 2
  4. Just quotes from a number of Scottish companies in response to a news story
  5. Dead link, redirects to The Scotsman main news page
  6. Dead link, redirects to The Scotsman main news page
  7. "The research, by the Edinburgh Solicitors Property Centre..." seems like essentially a press release, or based on a press release
  8. A BBC story from 2009 reporting on a report by the company, which also looks like it's based on a press release
As far as I can make out, all that sources 4 to 8 demonstrate is that the company's marketing people are good at getting its name out in public. After that, all that's left is the fact that it made losses and then returned to profit.

A Google search finds further quotes from the company in news sources, some press release things, entries in commercial guides, mentions from member companies - but I can't find anything in-depth at all.

I did find this book link which looked superficially good, but the footnote makes it clear it's the company's own marketing blurb. There are hits in other property buying guides, but they appear to be just entries in lists of companies.

In short, I don't see that notability according to WP:NCORP can be demonstrated. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 13:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 13:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 13:25, 9 November 2017 (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 delete. G3'd by Nyttend. The Bushranger One ping only 04:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Bavesh Padayachy

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

I have not been able to find any reliable sources to back the claims within this article. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Lourdes 11:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:38, 9 November 2017 (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. Mz7 ( talk) 10:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Imran Rajput

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

While the article, created apparently by the subject himself, is quite badly written (with two sections that had material simply copy-pasted from the lead, which I removed), the actor and one of his three claimed movies have insignificant mentions in sources (almost none of which are reliable). Subject fails GNG, WP:BIO and in specific ACTOR due to lack of reliable sources. Lourdes 10:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:33, 9 November 2017 (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. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger One ping only 04:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Phattharaphol Khamsuk

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

The footballer did not played in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, which fails WP:NSPORTS. Moreover, fails WP:GNG Matthew_hk t c 10:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 10:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Linda Michelle Darnell

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 08:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

According to WP:NPOL a local candidate is acceptable as "notable" if there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" There are three instances of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article;

The first one, https://thestoryexchange.org/election-2017-women-run-races-big-small/ The Story Exchange is a nonprofit media organization dedicated to telling the personal and professional stories of women business owners — and to exploring the role of entrepreneurship in advancing women’s economic independence. They are completely independent of and outside the control of the person in question (Linda Michelle Darnell). The Story Exchange is a well respected site; coverage by them certainly qualifies as "Notable"

The second one, http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/08/libertarian-party-wins-more-than-a-dozen Reason is an independent media organization which is completely separate of and outside the control of the person in question (Linda Michelle Darnell). Reason is a significant media organization; coverage by Reason is certainly enough to make someone "notable".

The third one, https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4600618/michelle-darnell-brings - C-SPAN, an acronym for Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network, is an American cable and satellite television network that was created in 1979 by the cable television industry as a public service. It is also completely independent of the person in question (Linda Michelle Darnell), and is a well-established channel, of which an appearance on, is certainly qualified as "notable".

Wikipedia's own page on Notability defines it: "Notability is the property of being worthy of notice, having fame, or being considered to be of a high degree of interest, significance, or distinction. It also refers to the capacity to be such. Persons who are notable due to public responsibility, accomplishments, or, even, mere participation in the celebrity industry are said to have a public profile." Based on the evidence presented here, the person in question (Linda Michelle Darnell) is worthy of notice, for being a woman who ran in a state election and garnering significant numbers of votes; She has fame as her actions have been covered by at least three separate and independent sources; she is of a high degree of significance for being a woman who has run in several difficult elections against much better funded opponents; regarding capacity, she certainly has the capacity for further demonstrations of these qualities.

Based on all this, I recommend that this page be retained; I would also recommend that editors follow Wikipedia guidelines in that an attempt should be made to improve an article before suggesting that it be deleted - and regarding notability, that additional sources should be searched for if this is the main concern. see /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating:_checks_and_alternatives Joezasada ( talk) 17:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Being a non-winning candidate for office is not a notability criterion — a person has to win the election and thereby hold office, not just run for it and lose, to clear WP:NPOL, but this makes no claim that she has preexisting notability for any other reason. And the depth of reliable source coverage shown here is not adequate to get her over WP:GNG in lieu, as Joezasada claims above: of the six footnotes, one is a clarifying note rather than a reference; two are her own primary source content about herself, which cannot support notability at all; two (Reason and The Story Exchange) just glancingly namecheck her existence in stories in which she is not the subject; and the C-SPAN reference isn't coverage about her but merely a one-minute video clip of her speaking. These do not represent coverage about her — they represent the kind of purely run of the mill sources that any candidate in any election could always show, not evidence that her candidacy was somehow a special case over and above everybody else's. Bearcat ( talk) 18:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Losing candidates for political offices do not meet the notability guidelines under WP:NPOL, and there is not significant, reliable sourced coverage of the subject to pass WP:GNG. And, coverage of the subject's electoral campaign is considered one event, see WP:BLP1E. -- Enos733 ( talk) 17:46, 14 November 2017 (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 Nathanson, but no consensus about Young.  Sandstein  19:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Paul Nathanson

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because [of the same reason]:

Katherine K. Young (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough. I initially did this as a prod but the template was removed and a list of additional refs added to the talk page but I still think it's too thin. The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 08:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 09:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The articles are stubs, but the authors are notable based on several reliable sources. Mattnad ( talk) 09:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The "sources" above not only don't rise above namechecks, some of them don't even appear to mention the subjects. Given the amount of noise MRAs make, the lack of substantive coverage of these two is striking evidence that they and their work are not considered especially important. Guy ( Help!) 10:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Young, weak delete Nathanson. The Telegraph and Vancouver Sun articles linked above are in-depth sources about Young and her works (the others, I agree, are not sufficiently in-depth to count for anything, and the Sun story does not help provide notability for Nathanson). In addition I found (and added to the article) five published reviews of her monograph on Hinduism. That goes a long way towards WP:AUTHOR, I think, even though the monograph had two other coauthors. — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Young she meets the WP:PROF standards by her books; Principal editor of Her voice, her faith : women speak on world religions which worldcat shows in over 1100 libraries. The volumes of the Misandry.. series , from a significant academic publisher, are each of them also in over 1000 libraries. The academic book reviews show her other books significant also,so she meets both WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. The references David E indicates are sufficient for her to also meet WP:GNG. As for Nathanson, based on theavailable information, he's a junior author. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Is there anything after 2002 that wasn't printed by McGill-Queen's University Press, her own university?
Does 1,000 libraries globally constitute a lot? -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 12:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Are you Wikipedia's designated expert on how many libraries are required for notability? Seems to me your concern is less about notability than scrubbing Wikipedia of people another editor called MRAs. I suspect that's really what's going on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.48.94.208 ( talk) 23:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Are you Wikipedia's designated expert on how many libraries are required for notability? Nope, that's why I asked the question. Young's blp already had notability template added to it in June 2014 and not by me – diff. If you know of any MRAs who don't already have blps on Wikipedia then feel free to create them, just make sure they are notable. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 00:50, 16 November 2017 (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. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 12:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Paul Meier (author)

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

BLP with reference only to his own website Rathfelder ( talk) 08:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Google turns up only a dialect coach with the same name. All the links to his own website or otherwise have shuffled off this mortal coil and gone to meet their maker. The only thing I could find on him was a forum discussion suggesting that he's a charlatan. Not looking good. No evidence aside from his own website to suggest he's been on Oprah! Famous dog (c) 13:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I cannot find sufficient coverage of him within reliable sources to make any real claim at notability. He's prolific, but not notable. -- Jack Frost ( talk) 11:00, 13 November 2017 (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. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 12:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Board of Certification for Emergency Nursing

Board of Certification for Emergency Nursing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article doesn't cite any sources; probably violating NPOV Simranpreet singh ( talk) 07:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 08:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 08:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 08:21, 9 November 2017 (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. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 08:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Muttahida Quami Movement Pakistan Sarzameen Party

Muttahida Quami Movement Pakistan Sarzameen Party (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

there is no such party. this is clearly WP:CRYSTALBALL. the two parties have agreed to form an alliance however the name of the alliance is not yet decided. Saqib ( talk) 07:28, 9 November 2017 (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 delete. And there is a draft for this article at Draft:Mustafa Jamal. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Mustafa Jamal

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

clearly autobio written by the subject himself. fails GNG. Saqib ( talk) 06:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:40, 9 November 2017 (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 Userfied to User:Fjohnstone96/Data Justice. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Data Justice

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

Lack of established research and google search return. Very little amount of publishings concerning the topic. Seems arbitrarily defined. Ueutyi ( talk) 06:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  18:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

List of pioneers in computer science

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

To me, this article is pretty clearly WP:OR, and definitely original synthesis. As a case in point, there is a pages-and-pages long debate on the talk page about who "deserves" recognition, which is not rooted in reliable sources of any kind. Wikipedia is not a hall of fame. Lists should be based on objective, recognized criteria. CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 08:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 08:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Actually, there is no consensus on whether to adopt that approach, nor on which awards should be included if that approach is adopted, nor whether receipt of such an award should be a necessary criterion for inclusion or merely an adequate criterion. Zazpot ( talk) 21:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
There is an on going discussion that seems to be leaning in the direction I stated above, with specifics being ironed out. It has not ended without consensus. Icewhiz ( talk) 21:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
That's your view, but I'm not the only person who is sceptical of your judgement here. We'll have to agree to disagree about it. Zazpot ( talk) 21:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
OK, I mean, I would argue that most of those categories should be deleted too, as they seem to be a way of ranking or judging people rather than categorizing them by any encyclopedic criterion. "Pioneer" seems to me a very subjective and loaded term. CapitalSasha ~ talk 18:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Shawn in Montreal's point about existing categories seems to reduce to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Zazpot ( talk) 21:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ Shawn in Montreal: Unfortunately it is not yet clear what this list is supposed to be. Some editors want the "father or mothers" definition, some want "winners of certain major awards in computing", and others seem to want "notable but more notable than just having a wiki article" (including an apparently failed RFC to include "overcoming of social barriers present within the field"). Despite User:Icewhiz's claim that the discussion is leaning towards the inclusion criterion being having won one of a select group of awards I'm not at all convinced that the inclusion criteria are settled, or even leaning. Meters ( talk) 18:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt. The article is in serious breach of Wikipedia policy. Its edit history shows deliberate, repeated removal of many of the women present (despite Wikipedia's known concerns about systemic bias), and its talk page bears evidence of editors effectively proposing quite serious breaches of policy. (Note: I assume these editors were acting in good faith, but that they simply did not realise just how deeply opposed to policy their suggestions were.) Examples:
Compare the suggestions above with actual Wikipedia guidance:

Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors.

—  WP:VERIFIABILITY

[Be] aware of original research when selecting the criteria for inclusion: use a criterion that is widely agreed upon rather than inventing new criteria that cannot be verified as notable or that is not widely accepted.

—  WP:LISTV#INC

It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one.

—  WP:LEADFORALIST

Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources.

—  WP:LISTCRITERIA
Several editors besides me have called out the bias shown in this article's edits and talk page (thank you): Andy Dingley here, SemanticMantis here and here, and David Eppstein here.
The key issue, though, is that there is no pristine, bias-free means to establish what constitutes a "pioneer" of, or a "transformative breakthrough" in, computer science (or computing, or electronics, per the lede). A much better alternative to keeping this article would be simply to categorise relevant articles as is standard practice, and to have Wikipedia articles for each notable award in the field. This would let us completely avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, while upholding WP:VERIFIABILITY and (I hope!) reducing contentiousness.
Zazpot ( talk) 20:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
No, I did not suggest that it "should be" an unofficial hall of fame. You truncated my quote at its start and at its end. Please don't do that. Here is my exact quote: "It's like an unofficial but important Wikipedia-based hall of fame, so we should be careful to get it right, and the people who care about this page seem to be going in that direction." See how quoting the whole thing in context changes the meaning you gave it? Randy Kryn ( talk) 06:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I don't see that adding the rest of your quote changes the meaning one iota. There should never be a "Wikipedia-based hall of fame" within Wikipedia (because Wikipedia is not a primary source), and so there is nothing to "get right" about such a thing. Zazpot ( talk) 12:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Zazpot, I did not suggest nor would I advocate a Wikipedia based hall-of-fame, you said in your original post that I "suggested" it "should be". I was making a statement about how it might look to someone, not that it is or should be. That you missed the subtlety here might be also why you miss the concept of the page and think women and others should be added on the basis of their sexual identification rather than on the basis of their work as major and field-changing computer-related originators. The present criteria seems clear: "a list of individuals who made transformative breakthroughs in the creation, development and imagining of what computers and electronics could do". Any decision about inclusion should be on the basis of 'transformative breakthrough', not on a sexual or national formula. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Randy Kryn, you seem to be saying that the second instance of the singular neuter pronoun ("it") in your quote referred to something other than the first instance did, and indeed to a concept that you did not even mention in your quote. I.e. that instead of referring to an "unofficial Wikipedia-based hall of fame", your second instance was instead referring to "selection criteria"? If so, then I appreciate your clarification, but feel that the issue is not that I misunderstood the meaning of your sentence, but that you did not write what you meant to convey. Zazpot ( talk) 14:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The 'it' you've pointed out referred to the list, not that it 'should be' something to the inclusion of all the other things it is or could be. The 'like' in the sentence means it resembles-but-is-not. The 'is' in the sentence in this post depends what the "meaning of the word 'is' 'is'", to coin a phrase. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Sigh. It is not canvassing to notify editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Zazpot ( talk) 22:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
When you chose to notify 4 particular users (and two possibly non neutral user groups) who happend to agree with you at some point in the article TP, while not posting the same at other users' talk - you are choosing a possibly partisan group, which is the definition of canvassing. Icewhiz ( talk) 22:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I was wondering if Zazpot was canvassing. (I was going to comment here anyway and already had the page on my watchlist before being "canvassed") Tornado chaser ( talk) 02:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN as one can immediately find entire books about it, including:
  1. International Biographical Dictionary of Computer Pioneers
  2. Pioneers of the Computer Age: from Charles Babbage to Steve Jobs
  3. The Computer Pioneers: The Making of the Modern Computer
  4. Computer Pioneers
  5. American Computer Pioneers
  6. Giants of Computing: A Compendium of Select, Pivotal Pioneers
  7. Pioneers of Computing
  8. The Man who Invented the Computer: The Biography of John Atanasoff, Digital Pioneer
Andrew D. ( talk) 21:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
That aspect of WP:LISTN isn't the only issue of concern here. Please look at the discussion above. Thanks, Zazpot ( talk) 21:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The comments Zazpot makes above are rather irrelevant, and way off-beam. The list should be based on WP:RS, and those clearly exist. So anyone listed as a 'Pioneer' in a book on 'Pioneers' of computing can easily be regarded as a Pioneer, and could go in the list, whether male or female, with refs cited. That wouldn't be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. The fact there was discussion on the Talk page of how the List could be structured is a good thing, and it's nonsensical for him/her to state: The article is in serious breach of Wikipedia policy, even if some of the suggestions on the Talk Page were a bit off-beam. Had the list been full of redlinked names, there might be some merit in that assertion. It's a shame editors can't cooperate on maintaining what should be a really useful and informative list of names and contributions in a helful, sortable order. But to suggest WP:SALT indicates there's an 'out-to-get-this-page' mentality, and that's a real shame. If there is a genuine attempt to expurgate women from this List that would be a grave concern and should be brought up elsewhere, with sanctions considered if proven. But, as is stated below, " AfD is not for cleanup" Nick Moyes ( talk) 23:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nick Moyes, "The comments Zazpot makes above are rather irrelevant, and way off-beam." I can see how I might look a little unhinged to someone coming at this with fresh eyes. "The list should be based on WP:RS, and those clearly exist. So anyone listed as a 'Pioneer' in a book on 'Pioneers' of computing can easily be regarded as a Pioneer, and could go in the list, whether male or female, with refs cited. That wouldn't be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH." A month ago, I, too, thought the matter was as simple as that. Let me explain how I went from that position to "delete and salt".
A month ago, sharing your view that anyone listed as a "pioneer" in a source on "pioneers" of computing could go on the list, whether male or female, with refs cited, I posted a list of some such sources to the talk page. These sources were reputable: the SIGCSE Bulletin, The Ada Project (of Yale and Carnegie Mellon University), and two newspapers of record (The Guardian and The Telegraph). Those sources were rejected by other editors on spurious grounds, such as that the lists were " large, and almost ... exclusively mention women", or that the women they contained weren't really pioneers even though the sources explicitly described them as such.
Over the course of the last several weeks, the pattern of denying the authority of WP:RS, and advocating inclusion or removal based on editors' expertise or on WP:SYNTH methods such as number of citations in the literature became increasingly serious, and people (especially women) were being deleted despite appearing as pioneers in WP:RS:
(I will flesh out this table as time allows - maybe next week. Feel free to contribute.)
Person deleted Characterised in pioneering terms by Notable why? Inclusion criticised by Deleted by
Kathleen McNulty Mauchly Antonelli
  • "Pioneering Women in Computing Technology". Carnegie Mellon University.
  • Schwartz, Juliana; Casagrande, Lindamir Salete; Leszczynski, Sonia Ana Charchut; de Carvalho, Marilia Gomes (2006). "Women in computer science: who have been the pioneers?". Cad. Pagu (27): 255–278. doi: 10.1590/S0104-83332006000200010.
  • "Women in Technology Hall of Fame, 1997 inductees: ENIAC programmers".
 One of just six original programmers of ENIAC, the first general-purpose electronic digital computer. One of the inventors of subroutines. [1]
Jean Jennings Bartik "For pioneering work as one of the first programmers, including co-leading the first teams of ENIAC programmers, and pioneering work on BINAC and UNIVAC I." [2]
Sophie Wilson Created the most widely-used microprocessor instruction set in the world: that of the ARM processor. No-one

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9nd0AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT432
  2. ^ "Betty Jean Jennings Bartik: 2008 Computer Pioneer Recipient". IEEE.
That was when it began to dawn on me that this wasn't simply a WP:CONTENTDISPUTE, it was really a dispute about whether to forge ahead with an article whose editors seemed to be forming a consensus that the basis for inclusion should be WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, in defiance of core policies like WP:VERIFIABILITY, and in which mischief like removing all citations for an entry or removing women was considered to be in keeping with the article's intent. An article like that has no place in Wikipedia now or ever, IMO. Hence my "delete and salt" position. Zazpot ( talk) 16:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
This is beginning to get ridiculous. We're not going to delete a page just because you've got some content bone to pick. Please do not flesh out your list. What this or that editor did has nothing to do with deletion. E Eng 17:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict)Agreed. Concerns should be on the Talk Page, Zazpot, and I can see you do really care. But this page is solely for WP:AFD discussion. I think there may need to be a WP:RFC, and possibly concerns over editing practiced raised at WP:ANI. But lets stick to AfD matters here, please. Nick Moyes ( talk) 18:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nick Moyes, thanks. I have already raised several concerns on the talk page, without much success. As for what's relevant to the AfD, the point that I am making (along with CapitalSasha and Tornado chaser) is that the edit history of the article and its talk page show that this article does not have selection criteria [that are] unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources, is unlikely to gain them, and therefore should not be kept.
About the editing practices themselves: if you are (or anyone else is) in a position to help with an intervention of some kind, I would appreciate it. With any luck it would succeed in reducing WP:OR, etc, but would be a lot of work to take on, and I can't spare the time at the moment :( Plus, it's probably better for it to be led by someone relatively uninvolved. Thanks again, Zazpot ( talk) 18:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The actions of those editors illustrate the difficulty (impossibility?) of achieving consensus on inclusion/removal criteria, and on having a WP:VERIFIABLE, encyclopaedic article on this topic. This in turn speaks to whether or not the article should be kept.
The actions of those editors are also germane to Nick Moyes's comment above, "If there is a genuine attempt to expurgate women from this List that would be a grave concern and should be brought up elsewhere, with sanctions considered if proven." Where else would you suggest I raise this? Zazpot ( talk) 17:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
On the article's talk page. You're just going to have to make your case that this or that person should be included, or help thresh out inclusion criteria. Your accusation that someone's out to expunge women is paranoid. E Eng 9:39 am, Today (UTC−8)
EEng, please be WP:CIVIL. I have removed your personal attack. Zazpot ( talk) 18:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Zazpot, you mean Your accusation that someone's out to expunge women is paranoid.? If you want to start the PA-crybaby game, your talk of other editors' deliberate, repeated removal of many of the women present, like it's some kind of conspiracy, is the PA, and indeed paranoid. If you disagree take it to ANI and see what kind of laugh you get. I've restored my post; do not fuck with other editors' posts again. E Eng 11:16 am, Today (UTC−8)
I have already provided diffs to justify my characterisation of the edits as "deliberate, repeated removals". These removals were discussed on the article's talk page, conducted without consensus, and then repeated after being reverted, so it is hard to think of a more accurate, neutral characterisation. Zazpot ( talk) 02:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Your mass additions of figures, based on their social attributes, that included game programmers and the first XYZ to receive a PhD, were roundly rejected on the talk page. A still open RfC shows little support for such inclusion criteria. I was acting within consensus. Icewhiz ( talk) 05:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC) Correction - most of the initial additions were done by an IP user (who seemed to know what they were doing). The additions were subsequently defended by Zazpot on the TP, to the objections of many editors, as well as reverting attempts by other users on the page. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
"Your mass additions of figures..." Kindly withdraw that comment. I have never added anyone to the list. Zazpot ( talk) 12:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The mass addition of women to the list was made on Oct 1 by 73.164.124.62 ( talk · contribs). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I removed Sophie Wilson as her inclusion was inconsistent with the exclusion of similar caliber early home-computer / 80-90s microprocessor innovators (e.g. Steve Furber which was on her team, Steve Jobs & Steve Wozniak, etc.) - it is really a discussion to be had on the talk page - but we should be consistent regardless of sex/LGBT status. Some other additions such as: Carla Meninsky, Mary Shaw (computer scientist), Sister Mary Kenneth Keller, or Megan Smith were simply beyond any defense. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Sophie Wilson is increasingly described as a computing pioneer in WP:RS. Whether or not any other person is not on the list is irrelevant: see WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. In the context, it is not hard to see why your deletion of her looked like the unjustified deletion of a woman along with a lot of other women, at least partly on the basis that they were women, rather than based on an assessment of WP:RS in each case. (FWIW, lest anyone think I oppose to Steve Furber's inclusion in the list: I do not. Furber is widely hailed as a computing pioneer in WP:RS and thus should be deserving of a place on the list under any reasonable criteria, if the list is kept.) Zazpot ( talk) 13:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Sophie Wilson's claim to fame was designing the ARM processor, but she wasn't the only one who worked on designing it, and none one else is listed as a pioneer. At one time Wilson was also credited with writing BBC Basic, which is certainly not that notable. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Wilson was indeed part of a team in Acorn Computers (which developed early home computers in the UK, as well the beginning of the ARM architecture (which achieved success - much later, at the time MIPS reigned queen of RISC). I can see the case of the inclusion of Wilson - however inclusion was inconsistent with the lack of inclusion of similar figures from the late 70s-80s-early 90s who dealt with computer architecture (e.g. John L. Hennessy is out) and home systems - the list is basically devoid of any of these (there are a number of "firsts" on the way to first PC). This should be discussed however in the scope of inclusion criteria on the TP, not here. Icewhiz ( talk) 20:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
There are also books called "the 100 best X in category Y" but we don't have wikipedia articles about that.... CapitalSasha ~ talk 15:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • CapitalSasha doesn't name any specific books or articles. I listed relevant books above and they support my position. Now, here's a list of similar articles for other fields. These likewise support my position and so my !vote stands.
  1. List of railway pioneers
  2. List of aviation pioneers
  3. List of Internet pioneers
  4. List of pioneering solar buildings
  5. List of early settlers of Rhode Island
  6. List of the oldest newspapers
Andrew D. ( talk) 17:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    • If you want specifics, I will point out that we don't have an article called "List of best vegan recipes" despite the existence of [32].... I would say the difference between the lists you cite and others is that they should, in principle, list all innovators in those fields who are notable enough for Wikipedia. We already have List of computer scientists, so "List of computer science pioneers" is always going to be "picking the best" from that list, which is inherently POV/OR. CapitalSasha ~ talk 23:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Amazon's list of "best vegan recipes"... right... You do yourself no favors with a stupid strawman like that. E Eng 01:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
To me a "pioneer" is just a "best scientist" so the analogy seems to work.... CapitalSasha ~ talk 03:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Hopeless. E Eng 04:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Given the amount of time you've spent here insulting me, one might think you'd have had a chance to actually present an argument. But no matter, I think probably the core disagreement between me and others on this page is that we have a different sense of the connotations of the word "pioneer", and I should have understood earlier that my view of it as being an aggrandizing/hero-worshipping term seems to not be in line with others' sense of the language. CapitalSasha ~ talk 04:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Yes, you should have understood that earlier. Way earlier. Others have presented plenty of good arguments, so I need not bother. As to the point at hand, "best vegan recipes" involves a sensory evaluation impossible to pin down, which is completely different from historical evaluation of the key workers in a well-documented young technical field; to draw an analogy between these two is absurd. E Eng 05:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I don't see the distinction between "hammering out criteria" and original synthesis/personal judgment, that's my issue. (And please let's try to keep the conversation civil, I know your comment isn't intended as a personal attack but it can feel that way. :) ) CapitalSasha ~ talk 15:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Oh, for Christ's sake, you've wasted a large chunk of editor time by making this silly nomination. With your limited experience you should have consulted one or two more experienced editors first before putting the ponderous AfD machinery into motion. Will you be nominating List of aviation pioneers, List of Internet pioneers, Category:Radio pioneers, Category:Automotive pioneers, and List of railway pioneers as well? E Eng 16:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
EEng, please WP:KEEPCOOL. At least three longstanding editors had discussed the idea of taking the article to AfD before CapitalSasha did so. See the article's talk page. Zazpot ( talk) 18:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Give diffs. Your inexperience seems to extend to the point of not knowing what constitutes experience. E Eng 11:16 am, Today (UTC−8)
Sure: Meters and I had this discussion; Tornado chaser chimed in here. Zazpot ( talk) 02:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
What your links show is:
  • Meters telling you Disagreement over inclusion criteria is not a reason for deletion... If you think this should be deleted then take it to AFD, but I suggest that you will need more than just this weak argument (emphasis added since you seem to have missed it the first time).
  • With less than 3K article edits, Tornado chaser is hardly the kind of editor I was suggesting you consult.
Stop fucking with others' posts [33]. The next time you do that I'll simply undo all your changes back to before you did that. E Eng 05:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I would be inclined to delete those pages and categories too, yes. Wikipedia should not be in the business of anointing people "pioneers" any more than it should be in the business of anointing people "heroes" or "success stories". If you want to criticize me personally, maybe that's a better topic for my talk page, to avoid derailing this discussion.... CapitalSasha ~ talk 22:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Though I did not and still do not entirely agree with Meters's characterisation, I did and still do entirely understand what Meters said. Note that I did not open this AfD. Re: Tornado chaser, you didn't suggest that I consult anyone. Six months and ~7K+ constructive edits is far more than most registered users seem to achieve (which is sadly unsurprising, given the uncivil nature of all too much treatment of other editors on Wikipedia). I'll follow WP:RPA - "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor" - and I respectfully ask you to leave those edits as they are. Let's stay on-topic, thanks. Zazpot ( talk) 13:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
QED. E Eng 22:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- The article is a mess at present, but has the merits of providing a place where this is an overview of a complicated subject. A major issue is the order, which is partly chronological and partly alphabetic; I would recommend that it should be chronological, according to the dates of successive breakthroughs. On the other hand, I do not think the tag for references is at all appropriate. The right place to look for references is in the bio-article on each individual. Encumbering a list with loads of references will detract from its usefulness. (I came to this because I watch history AFDs). Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
WP:LISTCRITERIA says, "In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed ... it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item." So references should be included. Zazpot ( talk) 17:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The problem with a chronological ordering is that some don't have a definite date. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep at least pending a final decision about what the inclusion criteria are going to be. Some of the possible criteria appear to make for an acceptable list, so it's premature to AFD this. Content disagreements and discussions of inclusion criteria, no matter how protracted, are not a reason for deletion. Meters ( talk) 06:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The term "pioneer" has some pedagogic value. Here, however, it appears to obscure the history. There is some place for a list of topics under "advances in computer science", bearing in mind that it is a young discipline. What is not great is that a list of associated people can be seen as functioning as recognition of individuals. In an engineering subject that is potentially a terrible idea, anyway. The point about list inclusion criteria should be well taken by everybody. I think we'd get a much better result with the columns interchanged, so that the list is one of advances. Clearly notable advances only should be considered, and those attributable to particular groups, teams or individuals. So stored-program computer rather than Max Newman, to put it in a nutshell. Having Bletchley Park referenced only under his name is nonsense, really. So, having thought about it, I conclude that the original version from 2005 has not been much improved as a guide by its existence as a free-standing list, over a dozen years. Time to refactor the content, under a different title, and in conformity with best practice. Charles Matthews ( talk) 11:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Editing others' comments
From Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable, the section "Editing others' comments":
"Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.
Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request. " Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. –  Joe ( talk) 17:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. My first reaction was that this topic is indeed begging for WP:OR, because "pioneer" is a slippery and subjective term. For one, given that the basic requirement for a doctorate is to make an original contribution to knowledge, all academic scientists must have "pioneered" something, however minor. But per Andrew D.'s comment above, there does appear to be a substantial body of reliable sources that discuss this group, and while the article is not currently in the best state, discussions on the talk page indicate that it's on the way to being brought into line with our core content policies. So it's a keep for me, but stressing that I'd hate to see this AfD taken as a precedent that all "List of pioneers in <field>" articles are acceptable. That seems like a very dubious and unencyclopaedic cross-categorisation to be getting into, and I think we should avoid them unless there is solid and specific sourcing for a particular case. –  Joe ( talk) 18:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - lest it be too encyclopedic for an encyclopedia. Seriously - of course we should keep it. Atsme 📞 📧 04:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the choice of who belongs, being conducted on the talk page, is original research. Would we allow "Pioneers of the english language"? Nope. I would be fine with "notable contributors to computer science." 198.58.171.47 ( talk) 07:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
That would be a simple rename, which would be OK with me. The pioneers of the English language are lost in history. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Hengist and Horsa, surely—but wouldn't a list of "notable" computer scientists simply duplicate list of computer scientists? –  Joe ( talk) 09:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
This page's present criteria, "individuals who made transformative breakthroughs in the creation, development and imagining of what computers and electronics could do" rests on the word "transformative". Those type of major discoveries and breakthroughs are usually well sourced, and those sources can be found on the Wikipedia page of each of the people listed. It's a wonderful list and an accurate name, full of history and discovery and the leap which was the advance of the human race from the fire age to the electronic age. "Transformative" means something, and should not be taken lightly. Meeting the "Transformative" bar, by its very definition and promise, denotes who should be listed as a pioneer, not original research but carefully following the sources and the field's historians. Randy Kryn ( talk) 18:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Randy Kryn: I don't agree that that is the present criterion. There was a proposal on the talk page [34] along those lines (but not the exact words that you are supposedly quoting) but that discussion has been sidetracked by this premature AFD. The fact that you agreed with the proposal [35] does not mean that you get to declare consensus. This is not the place to discuss the criterion or criteria, just to decide if the article should be deleted. The AFD was started because the inclusion criteria are not clear, and the talk page discussion stalled as soon as this AFD started, so I fail to see how you can possible claim that that the issue is decided. it seems to me that the AFD will likely to close as keep. Once it does we can go back to fixing the list. If it should happen to close as "delete" or merge then the inclusion criteria are moot. Meters ( talk) 22:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The reason I mentioned it is that the language was put on the page on November 2 and not changed since. I realize the criteria has to be totally talked out, but I'd think the language will land somewhere close to that. Randy Kryn ( talk) 22:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
There is a far cry between your opinion of what you think the wording will end up resembling, and flatly declaring what the currently criteria are. That's misleading, at the very least. Meters ( talk) 22:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment There seems to be some traction/hint of a concensus regarding renaming. "Notable persons in Computer Science"? 198.58.171.47 ( talk) 02:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Not in my book. That would be a much, much broader list. This is for the Babbages and von Neumanns, not your run-of-the-mill, everyday, nose-to-the-grindstone, great-in-the-classroom-but-what's-he-done-lately worker-bee hacks like David Eppstein. FBDB E Eng 03:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
No - as in wikispeak notable is someone with a wiki article (i.e. meeting notability guidelines) - that would be a huge list of fairly little value. Pioneer could perhaps be replaced with some other term, but not notable. Icewhiz ( talk) 08:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject of the article does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines at this time. Mz7 ( talk) 10:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

The Sonia Uribe Files

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

Fails WP:GNG. No sources other than two external links: the official website, which is a dead link; and the IMBD page, which doesn't even list a single completed episode. The first episode was to be on the Loch Ness Monster, but I can't even confirm that that episode was ever finished production, let alone aired. I can find no reliable independent sources at all for this show. Meters ( talk) 05:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete Per nom. Not even blogs on it. Galobtter ( talk) 06:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • There is nothing reliable about this show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan1973 ( talk • contribs) 10:01, November 9, 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Juan1973:I don't disagree with your view on deleting the article, but weren't you one of the major contributors to it in the first place, and in fact your only edits in ten years on Wikipedia have been to the Sonia Uribe articles? Bit strange now telling Wikipedia they shouldn't have the article. Richard3120 ( talk) 00:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I noticed the same thing.... Meters ( talk) 01:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I didn't mean to imply that I thought anything nasty was going on now. I noticed, assumed there had had likely been a bit of COI promotion 10 years ago, and was happy to see the support tor deletion now. If anything, I was surprised that the user could still login after 10 years. Meters ( talk) 07:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject of the article does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines at this time. Mz7 ( talk) 10:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Sonia Uribe

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

Opening this for User:Central2017 who claims "I am the article subject, and I regard myself as a non-notable, private person, and I want this page to be deleted" but does not understand how to complete a proper AFD. I have explained that this is not a sufficient reason for deletion, and given OTRS contact info for proving her identity. Having said that, I'm nominating this for deletion as failing WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. The article is almost unsourced, with nothing but a dead link to the subject's own website and a pic and passing mention in the click bait "The 50 Hottest Columbian Women". She apparently hosted The Sonia Uribe Files but that seems to have been very short lived. All I can find is one episode from 2008. I have not found the significant coverage in independent reliable sources to justify an article on this woman. Meters ( talk) 04:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete Barely even mentions exist of her. Galobtter ( talk) 06:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete There is nothing recent about her in many years. — Juan1973 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 09:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC). reply
@ Shawn in Montreal: I provided the OTRS contact information, but I have no access to see if the user has contacted OTRS (and based on the lack of familiarity with Wikipedia I suspect that there has been and will be no formal request). Since the article is more than 11 years old I thought it was worth taking to AFD to make sure I wasn't missing something. It looks like everyone is in agreement though. Meters ( talk) 07:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK1; nominator was unaware of WP:PM and proposes a merge, not deletion. Potental merges can be discussed there. The Bushranger One ping only 06:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Marijuana policy of the Donald Trump administration

Marijuana policy of the Donald Trump administration (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article largely covers a single press conference and three states' response to that single press conference. It the topic is noteworthy but not deserving of its own article. There are single articles for the administration's policy on immigration and the economy, but a separate one for marijuana? Seems rather silly to me. The content should be stripped down and merged into Social policy of Donald Trump. Instaurare ( talk) 04:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi Instaurare, perhaps it's a dumb question, but if the content should be stripped down and merged, why are you proposing a deletion instead of a formal merge? Regards, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 05:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I may be the dumb one. I have seen many AfDs where merge was the final result, so I didn't know there was a formal merge process. Instaurare ( talk) 03:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Even the nominator seems to think so "It the topic is noteworthy but not deserving of its own article." and seems to be only proposing a merger, which is why I !voted speedy keep. Galobtter ( talk) 14:03, 9 November 2017 (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. Mz7 ( talk) 10:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

TAXAB

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

New organization without notability, fails WP:ORG. References don't establish notability, merely announce campaign launch, but no lasting legacy (yet). P 1 9 9   ✉ 18:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I find the following source [36] and others around the same date, which to me seem borderline in terms of establishing notability. I leave to others more familiar with the Indian press environment to judge. Martinp ( talk) 13:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 04:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

PSA Tour

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

Fails WP:NTOUR, the tour only grossed $1,294,000.00 for their entire tour of 6 shows + 4 cancellations VS 11 other groups whose single performance surpassed the PSA Tour's 6 show total. The list of future dates is noncompliant with WP:BALL Atsme 📞 📧 00:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 08:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 08:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 08:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 08:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 08:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
It's too early to decide whether PSA Tour should be deleted. In fact, the article doesn't deserve deletion anyway! 72.92.40.158 ( talk) 10:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Dear anon, you are welcome to express your opinion, but if you do so, you should not close the deletion discussion per WP:INVOLVED. In particular, you should definitely not close it before it has run its 7 days unless it is a speedy keep case, and certainly not with a summary "withdrawn nomination", which can only be done by the person who nominated the article for deletion. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 14:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The answer. Atsme 📞 📧 20:23, 9 November 2017 (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. Opinion is split on whether the sources identified are of sufficient quality to meet WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Mason Espinosa

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE local and primary coverage from his time in low-level college football and indoor football. Well below the standards for WP:NGRIDIRON. Yosemiter ( talk) 21:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. WikiOriginal-9 ( talk) 21:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Haven't taken the time to look, but there is some significant, non-routine coverage such as this. If there are other reliable sources with similar depth of coverage, this could be a WP:GNG pass. Cbl62 ( talk) 22:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC) reply
I am not sure what you mean by "should be questioned". It certainly should not be "disregarded", and I don't think that's what you're saying. My rule of thumb is that there's a sliding scale on outlets. For me small town newspapers get less weight in a WP:GNG analysis, but major metropolitan dailies and regional newspapers are entitled to substantial weight. Billings Gazette is the largest and oldest newspaper in Montana, so it's somewhere in the middle. This one article is not enough to pass WP:GNG, but a couple more of that caliber (from additional reliable, independent sources) would tilt me to call it a GNG pass. Let's see what others come up with. Cbl62 ( talk) 01:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC) reply
By should be questioned, I mean they have locality bias (slightly independent or not independent of the subject) on something that would otherwise never be covered by any other media. I do NOT mean disregard. Generally, if someone gets significant local coverage, even from multiple sources, I lump that as one GNG-worthy source. Since multiple is typically needed, I feel there must be one other source with significant depth from a widely distributed source. Otherwise, this would be filled with city high school athletes. As an example, my step-brother is the starting running back at a high school in a 100,000+ metro area and has two articles written on him in two local-only papers; one about his then-upcoming season goals and past accomplishments and another on his discussions with some Div I FBS/FCS programs. He is a local high school star but nothing more for now. That is what I call a locality sports bias and the same general rules apply to pro athletes in small regional sports per SPORTBASIC (found in bullet point number 3).

I guess I should mention that I did go through all 70 G-News hits and saw nothing substantial like the Billings article. Yosemiter ( talk) 02:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Two points. First, your concern about high school athletes is addressed in WP:NHSPHSATH which provides an express limitation on the use of local sources. This is a special and extraordinary rule that was adopted to avoid opening the floodgates to high school athlete articles; it has not been extended to higher level athletes. Second, I disagree with your assertion that multiple local sources cannot suffice. So long as the sources are independent, reliable, and consist of significant coverage beyond the routine passing references in game coverage and the like, there is no prohibition on local or regional sources. SPORTBASIC simply emphasizes that local sources need to be independent, which means that the publication must not have ties to the subject (e.g., a university newspaper is not independent when reporting on its student athletes, and a sports league's web site is not independent when reporting on one of its athletes. However, newspapers and magazines with independent editorial oversight are valid, reliable sources under GNG. Cbl62 ( talk) 02:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC) reply
My point about high school athletes (and by extension, college athletes with a different explicit statement that is like the generalized term I referred to in SPORTBASIC, that the subject needs national attention) is that semi-pro/regional-only pro athletes get the same amount (and often less) than high school/college athletes in the local news. Yet you are saying that it means more. I guess I don't see the difference in terms of independence of the source, both are only being covered because they are expected to be covered by the local media on local athletes. The only difference is that one athlete is paid. Even the local Div I school's players and its rivals in the next metro area got far more coverage in local papers than the local IFL team or any other minor league players. Yosemiter ( talk) 03:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC) reply
I think you are misunderstanding the nature of what we mean by an "independent" source, Per WP:INDEPENDENT, and in short, it means that a source must have " editorial independence" and no "financial or legal relationship with the topic." It does not mean that the Chicago Tribune or The Des Moines Register are not "independent" in their reportage on topics tied to Chicago/Des Moines. Cbl62 ( talk) 14:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
All the low-level college coverage seems to be against WP:NCOLLATH as local athlete coverage, which is exactly what was being discussed above. But then again, I may be against the consensus in my belief that local coverage (local celebrities and athletes) should be considered routine and expected coverage. The transactions covered by only local media, as far as I have seen in AfD's, have almost always been considered routine. Yosemiter ( talk) 17:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
WP:NCOLLATH is an inclusive standard, not an exclusive one. College football players can still pass muster under WP:GNG. Cbl62 ( talk) 21:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Only inclusive to a point; per NCOLLATH#3: Gained national media attention as an individual. The keyword here is national, not local. I fail to see how sports sections for the Herald-Citizen (his hometown paper, he went to Cookeville HS, hence all the titles have "UC/Upper Cummberland Connections:" at the start of each) and the The Delaware Gazette (the paper for his college town that always covers the college) is considered National.

The rest listed by WikiOriginal-9: The Erie Times-News where he played in the low level PIFL and is routine game coverage, KRTV local game coverage and happened to win offensive player of the week with only two paragraphs about what he did in that game, Cleveland 19 game coverage, Billings Gazette transaction coverage of his signing, Primary DIII athletics website about him, Erie Times-News coverage of local team, Gazette coverage of the same Offensive player of the week award with the same amount of content, and WTOC-TV coverage of the next game will have a new starter (Espinosa). I guess I still don't understand why a local-only coverage semi-pro player would be notable when it specifically calls out amateur athletes (who often get more coverage) must be nationally covered. Seems like a lowered standard. Yosemiter ( talk) 02:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply

You fundamentally misunderstand the nature of an "inclusive" vs. "exclusive" standard. Nobody is arguing he passes NCOLLATH. The argument is that he passes GNG which does not require national media sourcing. **** sigh **** Cbl62 ( talk) 02:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I find Yosemiter's arguments persuasive. I also believe notability guidelines like NCOLLATH and NGRIDIRON gives us tools to decide notability when GNG is in question. IMHO, if the subject doesn't meet the specific guideline in the area that notability is claimed then I find them non-notable unless a very clear GNG exists. I (personally) hold them to a higher standard. Ifnord ( talk) 15:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
There is no policy basis for imposing "a higher standard" than GNG on athletes, but it's not surprising that you would find Yosemiter's non-policy based and deletionist arguments persuasive given the fact that the AfD stats you tout on your user page show that (a) you vote Delete/Merge/Redirect 89% of the time; and (b) Yosemiter votes Delete/Merge/Delete a stunning 97.8% of the time. Cbl62 ( talk) 16:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
And I appear to match with consensus 85.6% of the time. Your percentage is higher. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. I respect your opinion, appreciate the effort and time of your argument, but I do not agree with it. Ifnord ( talk) 18:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Well said. We are here for the same reason, to build a better encyclopedia, and reasonable minds can and do differ at times. Cbl62 ( talk) 21:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
BTW, I am no advocate on notability for NCAA Division III football players. But Espinosa may be the best QB in Division III history and holds the all-time conference passing record with 11,069 yards. He is the very rare example of a notable Division III player. Compare Brett Elliott with 10,441 passing yards, mostly at Division III level. Cbl62 ( talk) 21:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Just for the record, this (p. 20) says Espinosa is 16th on the D3 all-time passing yards list. WikiOriginal-9 ( talk) 22:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Elliott also previously played for a DI school, made an NFL roster (without making an appearance), and started for an AFL team (which qualifies for NGRIDIRON). He is also a quarterback coach for Mississippi State. All things that gets more coverage than DIII and low end pro career. They don't look that comparable (over 300 G-News hits for Brett Elliott football vs. 72 for Mason Espinosa total). Yosemiter ( talk) 22:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply

*Keep Delete - I think being the leading DIII career passer makes him notable. I added that he's an assistant coach also, albeit for DIII Denison. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Just for the record, this (p. 20) says Espinosa is 16th on the D3 all-time passing yards list. WikiOriginal-9 ( talk) 22:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Changing my vote to delete. I misread the info - he's not the leading DIII passer, just the leading conference passer. The #2 all-time DIII passer isn't on the site, so #16 doesn't qualify either. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
"The #2 all-time DIII passer isn't on the site, so #16 doesn't qualify either". That might not necessarily be a reason to delete this article. Maybe no one has made the other article yet. WikiOriginal-9 ( talk) 23:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Agreed, yet a simple search for Josh Vogelbach shows that he also fails WP:RS and WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 07:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Actually, Tim, it's not the issue, but that simple search shows the opposite: See Josh Vogelbach. Cbl62 ( talk) 17:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of discussion but there's only been a couple of solid positions taken. Could use some more experienced editors to weigh in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train talk 07:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 ( talk) 03:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
@ The Bushranger: Does your well-crafted discussion of the "nabobs" (a term I haven't heard since Spiro Agnew's day here) mean that you support keeping this article? Cbl62 ( talk) 13:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I have no opinion on the article itself, just on the level of discussion around it. Also that's not my first mention of WP:NABOBS. ;) - The Bushranger One ping only 03:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG. That billingsgazette coverage is good. GNG trumps all - SNGs are mostly there to keep articles where sources are expected to exist - they supplement GNG. GNG - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - does not say those reliable sources have to be national. And the second highest division III passing length record-holder does indeed have an article. Galobtter ( talkó tuó mió) 14:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Article has been improved since the start of this discussion. Also the billingsgazzete.com and nationalarean league contents are more than trivial mention.  —  Ammarpad ( talk) 21:44, 17 November 2017 (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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 19:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Mondottica

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

Pretty much just COI promo. Blow it up, and maybe someone else might make an actual article, if needed. Anmccaff ( talk) 21:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  18:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Disney International HD

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

Only cover in entertainment media, TV Post, Indian Television and bestmediaifo. Per Notability nutshell: "..world at large and over a period of time...", niche media sources doesn't constitute the "world at large". This can be incubated in the The Walt Disney Company India article or as a draft until suitable notable sources can be found. Spshu ( talk) 18:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment. Second guessing nomination of it for deletion is not a reason. Any one can nominate obscure TV channels for deletion. Why didn't you? Spshu ( talk) 22:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- This is an Indian channel, and has a good amount of coverage on Indian media. it does not always have to be mentioned by huge media sources. User 261115 ( talk) 21:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- The Indian television market is not mainly covered by the media of that country. Because of that, it's actually predictable to see TV/Entertainment-centred websites talking about the channel as references instead of general major news sites. Though Twitter not being a reliable source, the channel even has its own account there with advertisements from the channel prior to its launch. Aside from that, ads for the channel have appeared on some newspapers across India ( this being an example) and even a mention to the network's name appear on the official Indian corporate site. -- Bankster ( talk) 00:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While so far all the !votes have been unanimous keeps, there isn't much citing of policy or reliable sources going on yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Progressive Property

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. The sources used in the article are either citing people from the company for quotes, or are very local coverage of the company's charity donations. Googling, I'm not finding the sort of in-depth coverage we're looking for - there's some coverage on founder Rob Moore, talking about how how he got his money and how he spends it on things like Ferraris and (less than a month later) how he totaled a Ferrari, and this fill-in-the-form "interview". The biggest things I can find on the company's work is This Spectator article which covers how scammy their efforts appear and this review claiming their classes are a scam. Nat Gertler ( talk) 00:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete It should have an article to alert people to their activities before they get involved, unfortunately there aren't the reliable sources to write such an article so we will be better off with no article than a PR piece. Philafrenzy ( talk) 21:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Can find nothing worthwhile beyond what Nat Gertler mentions above. Agree with Philafrenzy - if we cannot find enough to warn readers about the company, we should delete the article to avoid it being used as a promotional vehicle. Edwardx ( talk) 11:09, 15 November 2017 (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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 19:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Thomas E. McWilliams

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

Not notable Rathfelder ( talk) 10:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- In my view, the lede should explain and justify notability. Being an associate dean is insufficient. Is McWilliams a great educator, doctor or researcher? A Google search turns up nothing special. Rhadow ( talk) 11:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:42, 9 November 2017 (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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 19:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Robert Hostoffer

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

not notable. References mostly advertising Rathfelder ( talk) 10:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. –  Joe ( talk) 11:03, 9 November 2017 (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 Bride (band). (non-admin closure) J 947( c ) ( m) 03:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

The Jesus Experience

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

Why was this article recreated with no additional sources. It was determined to be non-notable six months ago and since it still doesn't meeth WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM, it should not have been recreated. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete G4 (assuming its substantially identical, which looks to be the case); still not notable. Galobtter ( talk) 07:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Ahh I see someone random removed the G4 tag. Shouldn't matter though, as the reasons haven't been fixed. Galobtter ( talk) 07:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Redirect Makes sense, per michig. Galobtter ( talk) 03:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No opposition to sources found. (non-admin closure) J 947( c ) ( m) 03:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Bobby Roe

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

Non-notable actor/director lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. reddogsix ( talk) 00:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have to say, I'm still unsure why this is being nominated. I don't think the reasons up top about being "non-notable" or "non-trivial" are either valid or good enough. Originally, the article was simply subjected to copyright but I don't think that was ever an issue. The error was fixed and to this day there's no violations. But now things have been taken a step further and Bobby Roe has been nominated for an unnecessary deletion. The criteria of Wikipedia has been met upon its creation and the user above makes a good point – the film is notable. -- AlexanderHovanec ( talk) 01:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 15:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_November_9&oldid=1142617676"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 8 November 10 November >

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.

Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 02:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Ebony Cavallaro

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

Subject not notable. 2 of 3 sources are social media pages. I.am.a.qwerty ( talk) 23:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Disregard - Accidentally hit XFD button instead of CSD. I.am.a.qwerty ( talk) 23:52, 9 November 2017 (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 McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet#Switzerland. With a selective merge.  Sandstein  19:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

F/A-18C Mock-up MAGO

AfDs for this article:
F/A-18C Mock-up MAGO (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The mock-up is a training device as you can find on every airport in the world. The encyclopaedic value is not more than that of a random fire truck of fire extinguisher Recreation of the earlier removed F/A-18C Mock-up that was deleted conform Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F/A-18C Mock-up The Banner  talk 21:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • delete - two individual installations, not a generic model, nor particularly notable and individual installations. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    The arguments that they are "as you can find on every airport in the world" and also "not a generic model" are inconsistent with each other. The "delete" camp cannot have it both ways. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 11:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP it is an important saefty tool and complex military hardware. It is NOT a training device like you can find on every airport, it is far more complex and the two crafts are very unique. BTW also articels about such Trainigtools are encyclopaedic value. Also this articel is only nominated here because of wikihounding and stalikng from The Banner against me.. The article is existing since some time but just a few h after Steelpillow left a message about this on my talkpage The Banner nominated it for deletion. this is no coincident this is missuse of AfD!!! FFA P-16 ( talk) 22:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    • My friend, this is not even your article. So what is the fuss about? The Banner  talk 23:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
      • @The Banner I am not your Friend.. because you are hunting me mobbing me since years.. You knew very well what I talk about. Since years you are follow me and you are trying to sabotage everyting. So there is an article you don't care about, but as soon as smeone drop one word about it on MY talkpage you nominat this article in just a few h for deletion.. So only because of your sick wikihundig of me should this AfD get cloesd asap. FFA P-16 ( talk) 23:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
        • I am sorry to say, FFA P-16, that you and your sockpuppets, including the creator of this article, are now blocked for sockpuppetry. Too much screaming about how vile I am and see the flight of the boomerang... The Banner  talk 15:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. These are not notable outside of being 'training aids for Hornets', and while they probably are worthy of a paragraph (tops) in the aircraft's article, there is insufficient notability for an indepedent article. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    I have just added a paragraph to the F/A-18 article section on Switzerland. If this option is to gain consensus, this AfD needs to stay open long enough to see if it sticks. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 19:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Since the previous AfD for F/A-18 Mock-up, the Swiss Air Force have updated their official registry of aircraft. These two installations are included and have officially been allocated unique aircraft registrations ( tail numbers). They are even described in the registration list as "Boeing F/A-18C Hornet (Hugo Wolf)", i.e. as Wolf-manufactured copies of the American-built flight-capable machines. [1] They are thus not so much generic training equipment as non-flight-rated aircraft. I have also added to the present article two more sources for notability, which the previous AfD discussion missed. One is a piece in a major Swiss journal, the Berner Zeitung, which goes way beyond the "look, a big thing in the road" journalism previously cited. [2]. The other is from the specialist journal Allgemeine Schweizerische Militärzeitschrift. [3](pdf) (Translation of sorts, here). I have searched for similar information on any other "training device[s] as you can find on every airport in the world" claimed by the OP and I have found none. Unless someone can actually find some, the counter-claim (made by their manufacturer) that these models or mock-ups represent a unique approach to ground crew training, cannot be dismissed. Rather, the growing number of sources discussing these two "models" appears to support their unusual notability among training aids. (I disapprove of the current article title, but that is another issue.) — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 11:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Merge and Redirect per Bushranger. If it's kept, it would need to be rewritten entirely by someone fluent in English. - BilCat ( talk) 13:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: You know, I thought this looked familiar, and then after a bit of reminding I went and looked. And I wasn't losing my mind: this same article has been deleted before, and it was recreated following a consensus for deletion by the same article creator under a different title in what can easily be seen as an attempt to evade scrutiny with regards to the fact he was recreating an article deleted at AfD. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Just another aviation training aid of which they are lots around and hardly of note per the deletion of the original article. This role has mainly been done by surplus real aircraft but more synthetic aircraft are are around. The fire training rig at Heathrow has been on many television programmes in the UK over the years and a similar device is at Gatwick but they dont merit an article. Another point made further up the UK has many training aids and simulators that are allocated military serials and the simulators and trai ning aids in the Netherlands are given unique civil registration marks (a 787 simulator is PH-BHQ for example). MilborneOne ( talk) 20:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    @ MilborneOne: PH-BHQ appears to be a genuine 787 on order: e.g. [4]. There is a flight simulator, which is a typical 3-axis indoor cockpit simulator. [5] Given this apparent slip of yours, are the websites which think it is an order for a real craft the ones who are mistaken? Can you give some specific examples of other airfield-based ground crew training simulators which carry unique aircraft registration markings? i.e. not just software packages or wrecked airframes used for fire training (I have been trying to find evidence supporting the "not special" claim among editors here and so far I have failed). — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 03:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • withdrawn vote It would appear to just about fail WP:GNG dubious – discuss so policywise it is borderline citation needed, but there really isn’t anything special about it, and given the other comments here and the fact it has been deleted before, I am voting delete. 10:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver ( talk • contribs)
    @ A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver: Cited independent sources include respected journals, both news and trade. There is no doubt that in Switzerland this topic is notable. In what way does it fail English-language GNG? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 04:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I assume you mean the de-wiki version, if it passed GNG then why is everyone !voting delete? I suspect part of the issue is that we normally don't have articles for individual aircraft unless they are really really special even Air force one does not merit individual articles for the individual planes. Dysklyver 09:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The stability of the de version does help illustrate the notability evidenced in German-language reliable sources, but really I am referring to that body of sources itself. Two simulators are currently operational, so this is an article about an operational type not an individual machine. In any case, the English Wikipedia has long allowed articles for aircraft types where only a single example was built, sometimes where the design never got off the drawing-board. It all depends on what reliable sources say. You cannot sustain a "fails GNG" argument without reference to the sources put forward in support of notability. Did you actually check out the two secondary ones I recently added to the Bibliography? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 10:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I have not checked the new sources, no one here has actually read some of the sources, because they are both offline and in German. No one here has previously explained it is actual type of simulator well enough for me to understand that, I was, like most here i expect, under the impression this was a modified training aid. I think this AfD is descending into a mockery, little more than a pile on of people who don't understand the topic and can't read the sources. I apologies for having been one of those people and have withdrawn my vote. Dysklyver 11:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your honesty, I appreciate it. However, the new sources are in fact all online and linked to both from the article and from my "keep" vote above. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 13:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Um yes, it would be more accurate for me to say, some of the oldsources are offline / in German, and that I hadn’t checked the new sources. I will note also I can't deal with your PDF file links, although others might. Dysklyver 15:25, 13 November 2017 (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 clear. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark ( talk) 05:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Jefferson Davis Park, Washington

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

This article confuses the removal of markers from Highway 99 with this later controversy, blending the timeline of both. This belongs merged into the Jefferson Davis Highway article, not as an undue separate piece. Anmccaff ( talk) 21:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: The highway is only tangentially related to the park. Additionally, the Jefferson Davis Highway page is attempting to be all-encompassing of all events that take place on the never official highway; the controversy of the removal of the markers is not related to the current controversies. Nihlus 21:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
And yet the "unrelated" marker removal takes up the majorty of the article. Anmccaff ( talk) 21:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Stripping it back to what is separate from the marker removal would leave a stub of questionable notability. Anmccaff ( talk) 21:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, a separate and notable subject. This Jefferson Davis Park is a creation from 2007 and though it centers on the Old Highway 99 marker stones; the Son of Confederate Veterans, that run established the park and operate the park, did so for the express purpose of awareness and education of the public for the contributions of Jefferson Davis to the Pacific Northwest. [6] This has nothing to do with what the Daughters of the Confederacy intended when they established the stone markers in 1939. The controversy surrounding the park that made national news twice in August [7](2017) and October [8](2017) further speaks to the need to include the park as a separate article. C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 00:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
If that is the case, then why is the majority of the article about events from before 2007, which legitimately might be covered at the JDH article? Anmccaff ( talk) 00:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
And, more importantly, why does the link you supplied also concentrate on the history of the JDH? Anmccaff ( talk) 00:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
First of all, these Sons of Confederate Veterans, live in the past and wish to preserve the legacy of 'the glorious cause'; so it is not unreasonable that the bulk of their website is about the past. Secondly and to your point is that this is a new story. When all traces of the Jeff Davis Highway were finally removed in 2007 from public lands, that's when the story of this park begins, in 2007. Much of this article from the lead to the ending is to give context to the vandalism, death threats and actions of Ridgefield city in seeking the removal of the markers from the Clark County Historical Registry. The city and county governments wanting to distance themselves from the park and all it stands for; in 2017, after such moved were rejected in 2007, this shift in local policy is note worthy as it not only made regional news, but national news. C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 01:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment far from a snow keep, how is this not a WP:A10 speedy delete? It's a nearly new article which is substantially a duplicate of material in another article. Anmccaff ( talk) 05:24, 16 November 2017 (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) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Lap

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

The article is a dictionary definition contradicting WP:NOTDICT. A WP:BEFORE search found only online dictionary sources (not enough for WP:N) and will likely remain a WP:Permastub. Also, the disambiguation page has very similar content to this stub so this article should be deleted and replaced by the disambiguation page. - KAP03( Talk • Contributions • Email) 20:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

keep or merge . A distinct part of human anatomy. If you think the article has no chance to grow, the proper solution is to merge somewhere. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
P.S. It seems that you misunderstand the meaning of WP:NOTDICT. This article is about a thing, not about a word. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
P.P.S. Moving the DAB page here might be a good idea. You may want to request a page move. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:21, 10 November 2017 (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) Lepricavark ( talk) 05:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Helen Preece

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

In the nine years that this article has existed it has gone from being a two-line stub with two sources to a two-line stub with three sources. The subject existed - and the photograph is fascinating - and no doubt had a fascinating life, but neither her nor her father are notable today. Ashley Pomeroy ( talk) 18:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Ryan Catterick

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that Subjects fails WP:NFOOTBALL as has not played in a fully professional league, and no indication topic has received enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 18:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 18:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:46, 9 November 2017 (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  19:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Green Antivirus 2009

Green Antivirus 2009 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is here an apparent complete lack of notability. This was just one of many rogue security software programs, and the only thing worth mentioning about it in specific compared to them - the fradulent charity claim - is already mentioned in that article. The Bushranger One ping only 02:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 04:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist un Eins uno 17:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 05:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply

UK charity salaries of CEOs

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

Compliments to the creator for his/her research and table-formatting efforts, but this is the beginnings of investigative journalism, not a wikipedia article. No context or lead, just a table of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. PROD (by another editor) was previously removed. Martinp ( talk) 12:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nominator. A collection of WP:OR which presents data without context. Also of dubious statistical merit (listing one charity CEO's 2012 salary with that of the CEO of a different charity in 2017 doesn't tell us very much) and the inclusion criteria are not stated (there are over 185,000 charities in the UK so on what basis have the 21 in the article been selected?). Neiltonks ( talk) 14:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Are you nuts ? This is the only modern collaborative resource of it's kind. It is an update on: https://www.theguardian.com/society/salarysurvey/table/0,12406,1042677,00.html This table took hours of research. The purpose was to discourage people have little money themselves, from giving money, without realising that they would probably need it to maintain their own health moreso. I think it would be very unwise to delete this. There are many articles around Wikipedia which are simply tables. I started with 21 major charities, under the impression people would add more over time. If you are worried about original research, the last column can be cut. Tetriminos ( talk) 20:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply

User:Tetriminos, I have a great deal of respect for the hours of research and editing this took. But I'm afraid your reply amplifies my point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collaborative research space to jointly Develop Good Stuff, even update and expand data published elsewhere. There are plenty of such collaborative spaces around (though since this is not my field I don't know what would be a good fit for this, and of course such spaces tend to be less publicly top of mind than WP). Some of them, in some fields, are even wikis and use wikipedia markup language so your time spent formatting this would not be lost. I do regret that I'm upsetting your apple cart, and I'm pretty sure it's good apples. Just this is not what Wikipedia is for. Martinp ( talk) 08:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Hmm well it seems there's plenty of tables of statistics on Wikipedia, so I don't see how it's a bad fit:
/info/en/?search=Woody_Allen_filmography
/info/en/?search=List_of_British_monarchs
/info/en/?search=List_of_Donalds
/info/en/?search=List_of_South_Park_episodes
/info/en/?search=List_of_French_football_champions
/info/en/?search=List_of_Emmerdale_characters
/info/en/?search=List_of_EastEnders_characters
/info/en/?search=List_of_Coronation_Street_characters
/info/en/?search=List_of_people_from_Jersey
^ And the above list could go on and on and on.....
Are the above articles really more precious, valuable, and important than propagating the knowledge that the boundary between charity and business is smaller than some realise, in a capitalistic society ? As I said before, poorer members of society should be particularly aware of this, and nothing makes things more clear than raw numbers.
Or maybe we should just be reading about [British TV soap opera] Emmerdale characters.......... ?

    • I don't see how it's a bad fit - Please read WP:LIST, and you will probably have a better understanding. Staszek Lem ( talk) 23:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist un Eins uno 17:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:43, 9 November 2017 (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  19:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Rudy Moise

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

Unsuccessful political candidate Rathfelder ( talk) 10:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist un Eins uno 17:47, 9 November 2017 (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  19:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Mark Elworth Jr.

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

trivial local publicity for unelected political candidate y. Not everyone who wants to legalize marihuana is notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Subject was Libertarian Party candidate for Governor of Nebraska, nominated by petition, and Third Party candidate for Vice-president, nominated by petition to appear on ballots in two states, Iowa and Minnesota. Subject is notable for founding the Nebraska Legal Marijuana Now Party, and has been profiled by the Omaha World-Herald, among others. (Also making news for non-political community volunteer work.) Recent activities of ballot-access petitioning organizational work continue to be notable, and article is little more than a stub that can be expanded to bring up to date. -- The Hammer of Thor ( talk) 15:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    replythe trouble is the lack of significant coverage, the not meeting the GNG, the not meeting of NPOL. Candidates are not notable just for running. nor are his other political activity evidence of notability. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 16:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Neither being a third-party candidate for governor nor being a minor-party candidate for vice-president of the United States constitutes an automatic inclusion freebie per WP:NPOL, but there's no strong evidence of preexisting notability for other reasons being shown here. And the sources listed above by The Hammer of Thor aren't bolstering the case for inclusion, either: Independent Political Report, Ballot Access News and Palisade Community are WordPress blogs, not reliable sources, and every last one of the others just glancingly namechecks Elworth's existence in the process of being about something else. Which means that exactly zero of them count a whit toward getting him over WP:GNG: we require coverage in which he's the subject, not just coverage of other things which happens to mention his name. Bearcat ( talk) 20:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply

note maintaining previous position after considering later comments. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 20:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • These are nine sources of additional information for the article. None alone intended to convey notability. Four of the nine are blogs, at least one of which is credibly authored however. Five of them are reliable sources. These are extras on top of the dozen or so references already in the article and elsewhere on Wikipedia. -- The Hammer of Thor ( talk) 03:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Subject is notable since 2000 for work with the Green Party. And later petitioning for the Libertarian Party, which helped him to earn the Libertarian Party nomination for Governor. However, subject is most notable for founding the Marijuana Party of Nebraska. He has led successful petition drives in the past, and the failed petition drive he led in 2016 was notable in particular for its failure. Keep. -- The Hammer of Thor ( talk) 21:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply
For the second time, you only get to "vote" once in an AFD discussion. You can comment as many times as you like, but you don't get to restate the "keep" vote that you've already given — and just to clarify, since you clearly went with the wrong takeaway from the first time I addressed that with you in this discussion: it is not okay to restate your keep vote just because you italicize the word "keep" instead of bolding it. The problem isn't whether you format the revote it in bold text or not — the problem is the making of any followup revote at all. Bearcat ( talk) 22:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I think you're being petty about a typo. Please assume good faith. Striking through someone's comment is like talking over them, an impolite behavior. No one is voting more than once. -- The Hammer of Thor ( talk) 01:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Actually, when you write the word K**P in block letters on its own twice in separate entries, that's voting twice. Striking it out. Just leave it struck out please, to prevent confusion. It is very common practice to strike duplicate votes, look around. 104.163.155.95 ( talk) 02:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Block letters? Confusing? If you say so. -- The Hammer of Thor ( talk) 03:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Reply Yes. Notability requirements are met. Elworth is the "subject" of the articles in reliable sources including: NET News Public Radio, Lincoln Star Journal, KETV7 ABC News, Omaha World-Herald, and Fox42 KPTM TV News. -- The Hammer of Thor ( talk) 21:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • No, he's not, at least not if the links you provided above are the "proof" of it. In each and every one of those links, the subject is something other than Elworth himself, and Elworth merely happens to have his existence namechecked as a bit player. Being named in a source is not necessarily the same thing as being the subject of that source. And even if he were the subject of any of those sources, it takes quite a lot more than just a handful of local coverage to make someone notable — everybody who'd ever been a non-winning candidate in any election anywhere could always show five pieces of local coverage, so what we would require is nationalized coverage demonstrating that he's substantially more notable than most of the other half a million or more people who've been non-winning candidates in democratic elections in the past decade. And incidentally, organizing a petition drive isn't a notability criterion in and of itself either — many thousands upon millions of people have done that in the past too. Bearcat ( talk) 22:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist un Eins uno 17:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
reply to comment Much of the "keep" amounts to "I like it overly much". It is not required to comment about every part of the discussion you disagree with. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 00:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  19:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Dingoo

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCT. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 03:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 03:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 03:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Regretful keep. There does not seem to be anything notable, in the colloquial sense of the word, about this old console. So by my own personal interpretation of what Wikipedia notability should be, I don't see the need for us to have an article here. And the article written isn't very good and there's little evidence anyone will improve it anytime soon. However, doing a Google search uncovers enough independent reviews of this console to meet our actual notability guidelines, and we do -- noncontroversially -- have articles on other equally no-longer-relavant gaming consoles. Martinp ( talk) 13:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: What exactly is this thing? I don't see a description of what sort of CPU/GPU it has, and the operating system seems to be at odds with the list of similar products which appear to be native Linux boxes. Is this a totally separate product running its own software (mostly?). I really can't tell. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 13:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The CPU as listed in the sidebox of the article is correct. To the best of my knowledge, there is no separate GPU; only some CPU-based hardware acceleration of specific media formats, as was common for SoCs of that era. It runs a proprietary embedded OS by default, although an alternative firmware exists in the form of a Dingoo-specific Linux distribution (Dingux). 2001:980:A4CA:1:99F9:A8A6:9FA0:BD3A ( talk) 14:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply
It appears to be an off-brand knock off of a handheld video game console ( Game Boy Advance/ Nintendo DS/ PlayStation Portable/ Playstation Vita type device). A lot of smaller companies attempt this sort of thing without much fanfare. While everyone's heard of a "Game Boy", there's lots of little ones out there too that never really take off. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This device in particular is one of the earliest handheld emulators; released around 2009, before smartphone usage became commonplace, it was notable amongst emulation and media enthusiasts for its ability to play a wide variety ROMs and media files without requiring a conversion step, something that was pretty much unheard of at the time. Relatedly, it became popular amongst homebrew hackers due to the relative ease of running alternative software on it and messing with the firmware. I would say that it's historically notable enough (even if just in a niche) to keep around the article; however, I do feel that there are probably too many unsourced sections. To the best of my knowledge they're all correct, but sourcing them may be difficult, as the vast majority of information around this handheld was obtained through informal channels and published in unofficial places, due to the company itself not having a real presence outside of China. 2001:980:A4CA:1:99F9:A8A6:9FA0:BD3A ( talk) 14:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Could only find one reliable source article mentioning the Dingoo significantly. Siliconera article. Fails notability standards for Wikipedia. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 04:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist un Eins uno 17:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  19:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Heather Unruh

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

Subject does not meet notability thresholds, and appears to be notable because her son was allegedly victimized by Kevin Spacey. Even then, the alleged victim was her son, not her. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 17:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The article was created, by me 4 days ago, before she mentioned her son, though I did wonder who she was based on her criticism of Spacey and then thought she would make another good BLP to support the #1Day1Woman project (note that tweet did not mention Spacey, just an "award winning journalist"). There are sufficient sources in this stub to demonstrate her impact in the field of journalism. She has won several notable awards, in particular a "Grand Gracie" national award, and has been reported to have commanded a salary of $300,000 for her TV anchor role but with additional incomes made around $1m p.a. This is remarkably high for a journalist, and is actually a couple of times more than the Prime Minister of Britain makes. More sources and detail could be added, but even as a stub this is sufficient to avoid deletion and meet WP:JOURNALIST. Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 17:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
You mentioned money. I have to ask if we are Wikipedia or if we are Forbes magazine? I don’t think anyone can “buy” their way to Wikipedia by earning enough money. Also, she may be known to some, but to others around the country and world, her name is about as well known as Joe Schmoe. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 18:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Yes, amongst other things I mentioned money, because it's an unusually high salary for a journalist, but not someone who is a celebrity figure within TV journalism. No Wikipedia is not Forbes, but every CEO for a Forbes 500 company should have an article. No, Unruh has not attempted to buy her way on to Wikipedia, I doubt she gives a fig either way. Yes her name is now known around the world, because of the Spacey allegation, but of itself, that's not a reason to delete this article. -- Fæ ( talk) 18:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Just want to clarify. I am not accusing Unruh of buying her way onto Wikipedia. I am merely saying if we make an article simply because someone earns above a certain threshold of money, that someone effectively "bought" their way onto Wikipedia. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 20:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
just a comment. In many areas, value affects cost, such as salary. Unruh would not be able to command the salary she does if tv news organizations didn’t feel she was worth the money. Based on that point alone, she is notable
Comment: looking over WP:JOURNALIST, I found the thresholds:
  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
  3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

I would argue that she has not met threshold 1. People have heard of Sue Simmons, Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw, and Peter Jennings. Do many, many people know of a Heather Unruh? As for thresholds 2 and 3, I don't think she has met that, by any stretch. Threshold 4, her accusations re Kevin Spacey came really, really late in the timeline, well after Anthony Rapp and others. It's only because it's recent that it looks big. Years later, it will become a footnote, IMO. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 21:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

She's not the victim. She's the mother of a victim, and she's probably only known for that. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 20:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Fighting back the tears, here. I'm sure we can all feel for the unnamed son (but not in a Kevin way, of course). Whatever happened to good ol' teen spirit? Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment: Most of the award she received were either regional Emmys (which have been criticized for its award criteria, or lack thereof), or recognition for volunteerism and advocacy, which are given to many others as well. If we are to keep articles based on that, everyone on Earth would be able to get a Wikipedia article. By then, what would separate us from MySpace or Facebook? Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 02:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm on Facebook but I don't have several regional awards, and when the region is a State, that's a huge region; as reductio ad absurdum the comparison does not really work. It remains unclear why you are choosing to ignore the Gracie Award, which is a national award and not given for "volunteerism and advocacy".
Please keep in mind that this stub was created just 4 days ago, and that there are cultural reasons why it is more difficult to source the careers of women journalists and so harder to get these articles off the ground. The fact is that Wikipedia has 1,662 articles relating to women American journalists, but 3,879 about men. Arguing very hard to delete this one, may not be the best thing for the encyclopedia, especially considering that it is to the public benefit for people to be able to read about Unruh on this project at a time when all major newspapers have been quoting her as an important journalist. Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 09:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Before the Kevin Spacey thing, no one outside of a particular region of the US knew who Unruh is, and I highly doubt she is going to be known for her work outside of that region after this, because she is out of the TV business. Outside of Unruh's region, to be brutally honest, her name might as well be an animal call on a 2016 Pixar animated movie. Also, turning this into a debate on sexism and male chauvinism is detrimental and divisive. Also, don't even get started on regional Emmys. There are so many controversies before on how they are run (I've worked in the business). You're basically arguing we allow unqualified articles on Wikipedia because of sexual discrimination. That's detrimental to Wikipedia overall, IMHO. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 18:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment: The recent coverage on Unruh does not meet GNG, in my opinion, because the coverage is about Kevin Spacey or Unruh's son, and not about Unruh. We are conflating Unruh being a conduit to the victim's allegations to Unruh being notable, as if she is the victim. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 00:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
But is it WP:NTEMP, Megalibrarygirl? Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 00:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment: Unfortunately, WP:JOURNALIST begs to differ in the case of TV anchors. Using that logic, we would have to create articles for all the news anchors who worked at KXGN, the smallest TV station in North America. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 02:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I didn't cite JOURNALIST.  Unscintillating ( talk) 09:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Wikipedia's notability is a test to separate standalone topics from those merged.  If you don't want to allow articles on TV anchors, and don't want TV anchors merged to parent articles, I suggest you extend WP:NOT with a WP:NOT guideline.  Otherwise, miniBios of KXGN anchors depends not just on notability, but on whether or not the information has WP:DUE due weight anywhere in the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating ( talk) 09:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment- Boston Globe and Boston Herald are regional papers at best, with no national significance. We are not talking about New York Times and Washington Post here. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 21:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
...I wasn't going to stick my oar in on this, but then I saw this and my jaw literally dropped (and no, this is not the 'new definition' of literal, either). Are you seriously claiming Boston's papers have "no national significance"? - The Bushranger One ping only 09:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Boston Globe is noted to be the 25th most read newspaper in the country. Are you telling me that's a widely read newspaper? Even The Arizona Republic is read more than Boston Globe, and I won't say the Republic is a paper of national significance. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 20:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment- Yes, and thanks for bringing that up. All should be gone, IMO. None of them are notable beyond their small geographical region. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 21:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia notability is defined neither by your personal opinion nor by geographical regions.  I suppose we do see geographical regions of cities used by real estate agents that haven't attracted the attention of the world at large, but the kind of small you seem to be talking about considers the Boston MSA, the tenth largest such area in the U.S., as small.  Do you have standards?  Are you one of these people whose source requirement for GNG is, "more than you have found so far"?  Unscintillating ( talk) 01:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm going to strongly suggest you follow WP:NPA, Unscintillating. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 03:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I also find it rather misleading that you are using MSA sizes to make your point, when it is rather well known that the industry uses DMAs to calculate size. According to the latest data, only ~2,000,000 people watch TV in Boston, at all, and when you take into account that not all watch the news, and not all watch Unruh's station, that pool starts to shrink rapidly. Beyond all else, you have yet to make an argument that Unruh meets any notability requirements, other than being the mother of one of Kevin Spacey's victim. Not here to trivialize that (it is serious), but there are more than one mother of a victim in this case. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 08:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
"Only" two million. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I think you probably know not everyone of those 2 million watch TV, every single second of every day. When you start taking away those who don't watch news at all, and those who don't watch WCVB, not a lot of people are left. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 17:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
It remains unclear why you are choosing to ignore the Gracie Award, which is a national award and not just known to the small number of people living in Boston. Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 10:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Gracie Award's article is noted for possibly not meeting GPG itself. Therefore, I am disregarding the award. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 17:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The GNG is not required in some endlessly self-recursive way. An award should be well known, and the Gracie is regularly reported on by Variety and other professional media/comms related press, so "well known" it is. Please refer to WP:ANYBIO. -- Fæ ( talk) 18:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
So, you're saying this meets ANYBIO because of an award that itself fails GPG? That's like saying something is not faulty because of something that's faulty. I don't agree with your logic in this regard, unfortunately. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 18:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm saying that Wikipedia does not define itself. If you want to claim that the Gracies are not well known, then make that claim but after looking at some news sources. Saying "there ain't no such animal" because you do not find a Wikipedia article is an obvious walled garden. By the way, the article did not "fail GPG", if you want that to happen then put it up for deletion. -- Fæ ( talk) 18:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The argument that Boston's media and market somehow have 'no national signfificance' is entirely nonsensical. And when it comes to policy, WP:JOURNALIST is irrelevant when the subject meets WP:GNG/ WP:BASIC - which she does. There seems to be a heavy movement around AfD these days across multiple genres to argue that if the specialist notability standard is not met, one must delete, GNG be hanged, and that is something that needs to be stamped out posthaste. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Boston's market may be big, but it's not a market that has reech nationally. It's not LA or New York. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 17:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The subject is currently "nationally notable" because of WP:NTEMP, and even then, it's her son that's NTEMP, not her. You are confusing conduit of information with subject. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 17:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I do not see the relevance. WP:ANYBIO does not require that for a Wikipedia article to exist that the subject must be proven to be famous at a national level, nor that we should give proof that millions of people should know their name. If that were true, we would have hardly any articles for academics and I suspect that the vast majority of biographies would have to be deleted. -- Fæ ( talk) 18:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
You misunderstood. I was saying Unruh is not notable because, on top of not meeting GNG, JOURNALIST, and violating NTEMP, she is not the subject of the NTEMP. She was the person who identified the victim that is now the subject of the NTEMP. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 23:45, 15 November 2017 (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) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Mark Llewellyn-Slade

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

Article appears to fail the notability guidelines for biographies. The article revolves around the fact he operates an awards firm (which reads like an advert). Strip out that and all you're left with is the fact that he has commentated on many media outlets but that's it. Vasemmistolainen ( talk) 23:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Comments by the author of the article Mynconish ( talk) 23:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I am looking at Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) and argue that this subject is notable.

  • WP:GNG, WP:BASIC: has received 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. Most of the sources are from major media outlets, such as the Times and CNBC -- not adverts or press releases.
  • WP:NRV: sources are properly referenced, to the best of my knowledge, and are from reliable media.
  • WP:SUSTAINED: He has being getting coverage for several years now. Dates of references range from 2010 to 2017.
  • it is not written like an advertisement, merely listing facts which were stated directly in the sources.

Thanks for considering. Mynconish ( talk) 23:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - satisfies WP:GNG, either as person or his business for being a rather scandalous issue: "selling" highest British honors. Staszek Lem ( talk) 23:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Much to my surprise, the references do show notability. There is often relatively little difference between the person and the firm in professions like this, but I think this would appear more objective if it were adapted to be about the firm. If this is an orangemoody sock, its a considrably better article than usual for them--and considerably better than the deleted version, which showed the usual orangemoody technique of trying to accumulate as many references as possible regardless of their quality. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Visible Government

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

A small group that did indeed present a paper to a Commons committee, I can find no evidence that this apparently defunct group (its official website is not working) ever met WP:NGO, based on Google search results. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:17, 9 November 2017 (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. Overall consensus is for the article to be retained. However, there is agreement in this discussion that the article requires significant copy editing and cleanup to address promotional tone. As such, I have added the {{ Cleanup AfD}} atop the article. North America 1000 20:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Gujarat International Finance Tec-City

Gujarat International Finance Tec-City (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has had a warning for violating WP:NOTADVERTISING all year with no resolution. I was going to see if I could clean it up, but it appears to be too full of content that violates WP:NOTADVERTISING. Violates WP:G11. It looks like a copy paste from a company website, with news updates and awards. It also does not provide any sourcing for most of the information. Anon1-3483579 ( talk) 01:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep. I agree that article is in very poor condition and written like an advertisement. But topic is notable and major project so should not be deleted but rewritten. You may find plenty of news sources referring to it.-- Nizil ( talk) 05:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:NOTFUTURE, WP:G11, and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Nizil It seems to have news sources referring to it, but the development appears to be in very early stages and will be for a while. Another concern I see here is that any properly sourced information is just going to be a project/product announcement which could be against WP:NOTFUTURE. I'm not sure it can remain, as if it were to abide by WP:NOTFUTURE, WP:G11, and WP:NOTADVERTISING, it may be a very short article not worth noting. I'm not saying the GIFT project doesn't matter, but it may not have a place on wikipedia yet. - Anon1-3483579 ( talk) 06:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Anon1-3483579, I have already said that article is in poor shape and looks like an advertisement. It is an underconstruction project and three towers are already built so it can have information on them and other proposals like we do in underconstruction infrastructure projects like Metro rails. The issues here should be is it notable or not to have an article here. And I think it is a major infrastructure project in Gujarat state and should have an article. WP:NOTFUTURE and WP:NOTADVERTISING can be dealt with by cleaning up the article. WP:G11 specifically says "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." So rewriting this article is preferable to deletion.-- Nizil ( talk) 05:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Searching under the article title and "GIFT City," there does seem to be enough English language sources to meet WP:GEOLAND for city districts. I'm aware that there can be advertorial issues in even major Indian dailies, but I still think we have enough coverage in reliable sources, taken as a whole. And of course there's the issue that this is only English and there would be undoubtedly be Gujarati language sources, too. Whatever the issues with the article, I'd say keep. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 15:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article does need significant work, but the subject seems to meet WP:GEOLAND. An alternative to deletion, if it is decided that this should not be its own article, would be to merge it with the article on the larger geographic area. 331dot ( talk) 17:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
331dot, merging with the larger geographical area is a good suggestion. I would support that. The development is far from completed, so I'm not sure it is significant enough to be considered a significant city yet. - Anon1-3483579 ( talk) 18:04, 9 November 2017 (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  19:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

-ismist Recordings

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Non-notable record label. – Miles Edgeworth Talk 15:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:58, 9 November 2017 (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 seems to be interested in the newly offered sources.  Sandstein  19:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Natalie Gal

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

Non-notable person. Currently sourced by dubious sources such as IMDB and primary sources. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 13:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The concerns that there is not enough sourcing to support an article remain unrebutted. The "keep" opinions are basically appeals to WP:CRIN. This is an invalid argument because that page is not a policy or guideline, but a WikiProject page, and therefore does not represent community consensus.  Sandstein  19:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

D. Kodikara

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

Article relies solely on statistical profiles in CricketArchive and Cricinfo which can be classified as routine coverage and therefore fails GNG. Dee 03 14:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - at what point will these nominations stop? Why are we being held hostage as a project by those who despise basic, easy to follow, guidelines? This is becoming a frustration. How have people who have intentionally absented themselves from conversations over notability criteria and first-class cricket suddenly become experts about the same? This is becoming demoralizing for me and for the WP:CRIC project, which is being gradually, and upsettingly, destroyed. Bobo . 18:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep - passes WP:CRIN. Bobo . 18:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I can find nothing to show any form of wider notability for this person beyond their one appearance in a cricket match. The sources provided are database entires rather than substantive sources and tell us that a match that he played in took place, his surname and first initial. We don't have a forename or date of birth and in those circumstances I don't believe that there is any reasonable chance we'll be in a position to verify anything about the person beyond what we currently have at any point in the foreseeable future. If we can't add substantive sources then there's a clear failure of the GNG and several RfC (such as this one and back into the dark mists of time and the establishment of SNG with this one) have made it clear that sports notability criteria only provide a presumption of notability if there is a hope that the GNG will ever be met. If we had more details, say a forename, date of birth etc... and the player could be shown to have played in other cricket matches (i.e. of a non-first-class, List A etc... status) then I might be persuaded that there is a reasonable probability that those sources might exist.
In this case I have a more specific concern beyond these. The chap appears to have batted at number 11 in the batting order for his team but not to have bowled, was not the wicket-keeper and did not take a catch. I must admit that from the scorecard I get the distinct impression from that that he was an emergency fill in making up the numbers rather than someone who might have ever stood a chance to be a regular player for the club. This makes me more firmly of the opinion that we will struggle to ever show notability through the sorts of sources that we need. I would, of course, have no prejudice against the re-establishment of the article if those sources can be shown to exist. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 21:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Thankfully this can not be proven by the sources available and this point can be dismissed as personal opinion in the wake of basic statistical fact. I might as well just claim that I believe he was wearing a purple hat and wellington boots. Bobo . 22:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Also you do realise this "more specific concern" is pretty much the definition of WP:SYNTH, right? - The Bushranger One ping only 06:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I don't think I'm really combining anything from multiple sources am I? I am reaching a conclusion which, as Bobo quite rightly says, I can't confirm. - although I suspect it probably is the case. It's not really that relevant to my argument however and if either of you would like me to strike it I will do. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 07:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Citation needed. Precisely. Please do strike your argument. Bobo . 12:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Done as requested. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 14:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
No you haven't. Try harder. Bobo . 14:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I don't understand - I've done exactly as I said I would. Haven't I? Blue Square Thing ( talk) 15:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
No, the first half of your statement still exists. Bobo . 16:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I was clearly writing about the "more specific concern" as raised by The Bushranger. Anything beyond that is simply you trying to be too clever I imagine :-) Blue Square Thing ( talk) 16:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Please see this RfC which was closed as: There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. Looks like the trout did a WP:BOOMERANG there. Dee 03 07:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Please stop trying to influence people based on your own opinion, Dee. The fact that we have proven that GNG can be proven to be contradictory nonsense based on other guidelines is enough to render both guidelines completely and utterly meaningless. Bobo . 12:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
It is not my opinion. What I quoted above in green is the result of an RfC, which was open for several weeks and had dozens of participants, from a few months ago. Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing and claiming GNG is "nonsense" in every single discussion. This is getting silly. Dee 03 14:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Yes it is your opinion. And yes, GNG is nonsense by the fact that is directly contradicted elsewhere. If you are unwilling to work to brightline criteria simply for the sake of pushing your own regime, you are the problem, not the solution. Bobo . 14:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
It is the result of an RfC. Can you click on the link and read the discussion and stop wasting everybody's time? I'm done with this conversation. Dee 03 14:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Thank you for not addressing my point. Bye. Bobo . 14:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Blue Square Thing. Another virtually empty article based on bare statistics, with sourcing so poor that the person's name cannot be even be determined. The only sources are statistics aggregators CricInfo and CricketArchive, which have been shown not to be independent of each other in the sense that one copies content extensively from the other (or in both directions), and which have been proven to have non-negligible rates of error. These are not good enough for the biography of a presumably living person. I'd support a merger of these raw stats to a suitable list article, but I'm not sure if there is one. Reyk YO! 15:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I mean this entirely seriously and not as an attack. If you're not sure there is a list article, there are two things you can do. Check, and if there isn't one, create one. If you are willing to create a list article containing every single first-class player for a given team on completely NPOV guidelines, do so. The whole problem with the list articles which we have recently seen is that they were slapdash and based entirely on people's POV decisions as to whether the article was deleted or not.
If you create a list article based on the one or two items which you have decided, against fundamental project guidelines, that the article should be deleted, then, as per recent AfD debates, these lists are likely to be deleted. If you are willing to create a list article with every individual who played for the side, then this is the only way these will be seen as being useful. Bobo . 16:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Could you please explain, User:Reyk, where you get the evidence that CricInfo and CricketArchive are not independent of each other and copy from each other, and where they have been "proven" to have "non-negligible rates of error"? I ask because I am a serial, long-term user of both of these sites and do not recognise your description of them. Johnlp ( talk) 18:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, for instance here we discovered that both sources referred to Barinder Sran with the wrong spelling of "Brainder". That's enough to show that one has copied from the other, and that neither has been careful about spellchecking. At other AfDs, for instance this one, we've found out that these statistical aggregators can't always distinguish one player representing multiple clubs from several different, similarly named, people playing for one club each. Reyk YO! 12:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Copying is only one possible explanation for Brainder Sran, and is actually not very likely given that these two websites are direct commercial competitors; a more likely one is that both websites take their information directly from the match scorers' scorebooks, the primary source, which may not be error-free. I know that that is how CricketArchive works and I would be surprised if it was not the case with CricInfo as well, as that has significantly greater resources. The Perera example is not an error: a player of that name played for Old Cambrians in a first-class match, and it is not clear whether this is the same Perera as played for other teams in other matches; both sites wisely refuse to conflate, and therefore have independently created a separate entry for the Old Cambrians' Perera. What else would you have them do? I'm not saying that these sites have no errors (or omissions) and have indeed reported a few to them myself over the years, which they have then amended. But, unlike you, it would seem, I have used these highly trusted sites virtually every day for about 12 years for WP articles and for other projects, and have found very few gaps or errors. You wrote about "proven" "non-negligible rates of error": perhaps you would care to give us some other examples from your own use of the sites. Johnlp ( talk) 14:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Like the others. I do not understand what all the fuss is all about. It is already understood you can not supercede the general notability guideline like it does not exist. Surely, a source of raw statistics does not satisfy the indepth coverage we need nor is it appropriate to depend on for a BLP. If there was anything, and I mean anything, that demonstrates this person was covered adequately and I somehow missed it, I would probably !vote keep. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 17:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete a one source article on someone who nothing is really known about is not worth having. It is high time that the overly permissive inclusion criteria for cricket players be revised. If someone needs two significant roles in notable productions to be a notable actor, how in the world can someone be notable for any role, no matter how insignificant, in just one first class cricket match. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:37, 14 November 2017 (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  19:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Balfour Senior Living

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

promotional article on non=-notable community. I and another eds. removed most of the spam, but there isn't enough left to support the article. Almost every ref is a local press release--based article published in local newspapers; almost every award is also local.

Created by an spa, who would seem to be an undeclared paid editor, judging by the content of the original version. [29] I thought and still think it should have been deleted rather than waste the effort trying to improve as volunteers what others are being paid for and doing incompetently. DGG ( talk ) 15:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep Btw, I tore out a bunch of the pretty useless content out of it as well. I don't disagree much of the coverage is local, but The Denver Post isn't nothing. Surprisingly quite a bit of media over the fact they are doing pot classes, which at the moment seems to be their claim to fame. I also agree the awards carry little merit with me. That said, I think it's references (and there's a few more online) nudge it over the notability edge, although I won't shed any tears if consensus feels otherwise. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:18, 9 November 2017 (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  19:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Kamats Restaurants

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

No evidence of notability. My A7 was declined , on the basis of "claims notability" I consider that puffery, not a genuine statement of significance or importance. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • It seems that Kamat Hotels may well be notable, but not this article subject. It appears to me that this title was chosen for the article on the basis of a cultural cringe, because the restaurants have recently expanded into the West whereas the hotels are, according to the sources that I can find, a pretty major operation in India:
Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 21:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply
I agree the hotels are notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Then maybe the solution is to move this to Kamat Hotels, which is what the references are about? 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 18:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • "...is looking forward to expand its presence by opening 30 more restaurants!"
Lacks notability to boot; WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH fail. Delete. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:10, 15 November 2017 (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 America 1000 01:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Nuvision Entertainment

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

Clearly fails WP:CORP with only one source currently on the article which is just another Wiki. Furthermore the original author has just blank copied from that Wiki (I cannot find the exact copyright details for the site and therefore presume it is copyrighted). Finally I can't see this company ever being notable given it was short lived and produced only a few poorly received games. Vasemmistolainen ( talk) 19:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  • I fixed the "copying" of the website, but I hadn't actually copied from the website. Furthermore, Bimini Run, while not becoming a major hit of a game, was sold in a fair quantity around the world. I have studied early games for years, and I know what I am talking about. I have found multiple references to this company and the games that they produced/were producing. It may not be a hard-hitting Wikipedia page, but I think it still deserves to be existent.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:17, 9 November 2017 (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  19:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Outreach.io

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

This article is promotional, thus making it an egregious violation of our neutral point of view policy. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 20:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi, I'm not sure how this is promotional. This is written in a neutral POV and does not include promotional or leading language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelseyf ( talk • contribs) 21:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as I don't see any reason for this to be notable. The company still seems to be in its early VC-funded stage. The product doesn't have a wide userbase and doesn't seem to be notable. The media coverage is restricted to announcements and Public Relations wires which are picked up by various blogs and interest sites. There isn't any credible coverage about the company by well known media. The Forbes article is one of the many "Forbes lists" and is a pure speculation of the value.-- DreamLinker ( talk) 16:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as corporate spam on a nn business. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:21, 16 November 2017 (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 DMacks ( talk) 17:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Alyas Jovan Panot

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

I'm struggling to see the point of this - a former user talk page moved over to article space. Appears to be an orphaned non-notable TV series with the same name as the primary editor. Coincidence, or blatant hoax? Night fury 13:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Night fury 13:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Night fury 13:40, 9 November 2017 (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  19:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Almon Gunter

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

Verging on NN. Clamed to be a USA track and field sprinter however, cannot find any mention of him on their main webpage. Google search provides little to go on as well. A further dig however on a Yahoo chat room of all places says he was a qualifier for the (what?) Olympics but nothing else. Night fury 13:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Night fury 13:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Night fury 13:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I don't see how that is a strong point against notability. There are a number of academic sources that support inclusion in Florida academic circles, and at least one of those YouTube videos is a directly sourced news station video. If they aren't reliable enough to support specific claims, such as academic accomplishments, that's one things, but how is that ubiquitously indicative of non-notability? - Cam T| C
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. Of the four "keep"s, only one actually discusses reasons for notability and sourcing.  Sandstein  19:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Naomi (actress)

Naomi (actress) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Despite winning a best new starlet award we are left with no meaninful sources as required for a blp. Technical SNG passes do not equate to an article if the SNG is subordinate to GNG and it clearly fails GNG. Delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep "she passes policy, but delete anyway" is not a good argument. We decided to remove porn bios unless they had these awards, to change that, you have to change pornbio first. GuzzyG ( talk) 11:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Would you argue that Mickey Murray is a technical sng pass with no gng value and should be deleted? And if not, then why on this? We shouldn't pick and choose Wikipedia policy for stuff we don't like. GuzzyG ( talk) 12:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
I would actually nominate the Mike Murray article for deletion, if I had not already nominated another today. I would fully urge you GuzzyG to nominate that article. If you do I promise to advocate for its deletion. Wikipedia needs to hold more to the reliable sources rule. If we require multiple significant film roles to make an actor notable, it is beyond bizarre that a sportsperson can be notable with a passing performance in one game. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:PORNBIO, like other SNG's, is meant to offer guidance about things that make it likely that a subject is notable. SNG's augment our general notability guideline, not replace it. She won the award in 2007 but there's a dearth of coverage in reliable sources in the subsequent decade and, since she's apparently left the industry, it's a dearth that's very likely to continue in decades to come. David in DC ( talk) 16:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • I found a mention of Naomi in a 2015 list, published by a Jewish news service ( Jewish Telegraphic Agency), of Jewish porn stars. It sources her birth name and the fact that her father was a rabbi. I've inserted it. But I still don't think that gets us over the GNG hump. David in DC ( talk) 17:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Normally i'd agree but if you were to nominate unsourcable and impossible to write about which severely fails GNG Mickey Murray for deletion the SNG relevant to Ice Hockey, would prevent it from being deleted with some chutzpah about "some sources" of newspapers briefly mentioning him playing.. I just find it funny that only porn get's editors with edit logs of literally months of only nominating pornbios for deletion, but when it comes to other GNG violations they do not care. Porn is in a sticky place on wiki as obviously mainstream sources won't cover it due to religious types and the only things that would cover it are tabloids or trade magazines which get put down as "promotional". Just seems absurd that over 600,000 people view a "non-notable" person's page, as someone who has an excel sheet full of tens of thousands of wikipedia bios that number is very high. GuzzyG ( talk) 17:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Your argument here is an argument for deletion. You just admitted that the subject is not covered in reliable sources, which is exactly what is required to have an article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Passes WP:PORNBIO as best new starlet for avn is a well known and significant award as confirmed by prior consensus in AfDs for Abella Danger Mia Malkova Gracie Glam. The sources support for two paragraphs of content. What more do we need to know about her? Morbidthoughts ( talk) 22:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete total failure of GNG. It is high time we stop using a special carve out to keep an inordinate number of articles on pornographic actresses. Wikipedia has been heavily attacked for the inordinate amount of space devoted to pornographic actresses for years. It is high time we fix this poor decision in coverage, and start removing articles on people who totally fail the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • This is a notability argument without analysis of the alternatives to deletion, WP:IGNORINGATD.  So the post hasn't tried to post a delete argument.  As per WP:N, GNG notability is no different than PORNBIO notability; so failing GNG, in the context here, is irrelevant anyway.  Unscintillating ( talk) 15:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- for lack of reliable 3rd party sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail ( WP:N). Having participated in a number of WP:PORBIO AfDs, my impression is that the SNG in question is largely not credible. That is, a technical pass at the SNG does not necessarily mean that the subject would have garnered sufficient coverage for a stand-alone bio article; see WP:WHYN. It's a "delete" for me in this case. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • WHYN is not a part of the standard, and hasn't been for years.  WP:N is not a content guideline...our core content policies take that role.  WP:N "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow", and chronic grousing against WP:N's subject-specific guidelines does not fall into the category of common sense or an occasional exception.  Common sense is that if some editors are using standard a, and other editors are using standard b, the project will be the victim.  Editors have tried to change PORNBIO, and the community has refused.  Your grousing is an admission that the topic passes WP:PORNBIO as per community consensus, and that you can't refute the evidence.  Unscintillating ( talk) 02:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you NA1000 for reopening. I’d like to bring in The Drv for Lana Rhoades which clearly demonstrates the point that pornbio doesn’t trump gng and that if you can’t source it, a technical pass is no defense. On that basis the keep votes so far are non-policy based and should not be given as much weight in the close as the delete votes. Spartaz Humbug! 21:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The DRV couldn't have discussed sourcing if they wanted to, because (1) the article considered at the RFC/AFD had been deleted and was not temp undeleted for the DRV, and (2) the RFC/AFD closer did not identify BLP issues in the close.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • As shown at the DRV, WP:N places GNG on a level playing field with PORNBIO.  It was also shown in the DRV that a defender of GNG could not explain how to apply the standard, meaning that GNG is as much vaporware as it is a standard.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The DRV raises other questions, one of which is why Spartaz, who last I heard is an administrator, allowed the original RFC/AfD to remain posted in an AFD forum.   Spartaz was also first in line at the DRV, and allowed the DRV to proceed even though the closing administrator of the RFC/AfD had not been contacted.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • It was shown at the DRV that there was consensus at the original RFC that one of the points of evidence satisfied PORNBIO.  It was also shown that no delete !vote presented evidence that the topic failed GNG.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • There were four major procedural errors in the RFC/AFD close identified at the DRV, none of which the DRV closer explained.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment: Those arguments were rejected all but unanimously by the other DRV participants. They're now pretty much a road map to insufficient support for notability claims. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 12:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • User:Unscintillating Since the DRV was closed as endorse and you were the only person arguing otherwise and your arguments remain based on your own understanding of the guidelines that no-one else in the world shares, I really do fail to follow what ever point it is you are trying to make. I also see that once again your argument is supported by ad homs against me that have no relevance to the discussion. Please remove them unless you would like me to find an independent admin at ANI to review them as personal attacks. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 06:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • It was your choice to "bring in" the DRV, and now the DRV discussion has moved to the rule of law.  It is a legitimate question as to why both the AfD and DRV processes continued without administrative intervention.
    Take a look at what WP:PERPOLICY says, "Even if ten editors state an article should be deleted, and one editor states the article should be kept, but the one who wants it kept gives a good argument citing policy, while the other ten give none, this is sufficient grounds for keeping an article."  Unscintillating ( talk) 12:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Funny how those !voting Keep/Speedy Keep have nitpicked over the noms rationale but not one of them have provided any sources to establish whether GNG or PORNBIO is met, Well they've not provided any because there isn't any. – Davey2010 Talk 12:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. as not notable (and with promotional content). Of her three awards, two are explicitly for beginners, and that translates in WP terms as not yet notable Some discussion of her personal sexual interests is not irrelevant in this field, but the extent of it , including the quotation, is promotional for her work. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 15 November 2017 (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 United States House of Representatives elections, 2018#Colorado. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Mark Williams (Colorado politician)

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

Prod removed without comment, not notable as per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:NPOL Gbawden ( talk) 12:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections, 2018#Colorado. Redirects are cheap and it points to what he is "notable" for, while preserving the article history if he wins the election. (And if not, redirects are still cheap.) - The Bushranger One ping only 04:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per The Bushranger. Being an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election is not a notability criterion — a person has to win the election and thereby hold office to clear WP:NPOL, not just be a candidate in it. But this shows no evidence of preexisting notability for other reasons, and the media coverage is not demonstrating any reason why his candidacy could be considered a special case: it's based entirely on the purely run of the mill local coverage that would simply be expected to exist for any candidate in any primary. As always, no prejudice against recreation in November 2018 if he wins the seat, but nothing here constitutes a reason why he would already get a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat ( talk) 18:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Edinburgh Solicitors Property Centre

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

This article came to my attention after a blatant attempt to turn it into pure advertising, and after examining it closely I increasingly came to the conclusion that its apparently impressive list of reliable sources is largely there to make it look important. I removed the "Professional bodies" section which was not about the company at all but just general legal requirements, and then I examined the "Market commentator" section and that's really just a list of links to things the company has said. Anyway, as of this version (permalink), here's my take on the sources:

  1. Just Companies House registration, which every company has (actually a dead link)
  2. A report that the company had turned from loss to profit, which is nothing notable
  3. Essentially the same as 2
  4. Just quotes from a number of Scottish companies in response to a news story
  5. Dead link, redirects to The Scotsman main news page
  6. Dead link, redirects to The Scotsman main news page
  7. "The research, by the Edinburgh Solicitors Property Centre..." seems like essentially a press release, or based on a press release
  8. A BBC story from 2009 reporting on a report by the company, which also looks like it's based on a press release
As far as I can make out, all that sources 4 to 8 demonstrate is that the company's marketing people are good at getting its name out in public. After that, all that's left is the fact that it made losses and then returned to profit.

A Google search finds further quotes from the company in news sources, some press release things, entries in commercial guides, mentions from member companies - but I can't find anything in-depth at all.

I did find this book link which looked superficially good, but the footnote makes it clear it's the company's own marketing blurb. There are hits in other property buying guides, but they appear to be just entries in lists of companies.

In short, I don't see that notability according to WP:NCORP can be demonstrated. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 13:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 13:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 13:25, 9 November 2017 (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 delete. G3'd by Nyttend. The Bushranger One ping only 04:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Bavesh Padayachy

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

I have not been able to find any reliable sources to back the claims within this article. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Lourdes 11:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:38, 9 November 2017 (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. Mz7 ( talk) 10:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Imran Rajput

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

While the article, created apparently by the subject himself, is quite badly written (with two sections that had material simply copy-pasted from the lead, which I removed), the actor and one of his three claimed movies have insignificant mentions in sources (almost none of which are reliable). Subject fails GNG, WP:BIO and in specific ACTOR due to lack of reliable sources. Lourdes 10:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:33, 9 November 2017 (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. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger One ping only 04:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Phattharaphol Khamsuk

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

The footballer did not played in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, which fails WP:NSPORTS. Moreover, fails WP:GNG Matthew_hk t c 10:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 10:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Linda Michelle Darnell

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 08:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

According to WP:NPOL a local candidate is acceptable as "notable" if there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" There are three instances of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article;

The first one, https://thestoryexchange.org/election-2017-women-run-races-big-small/ The Story Exchange is a nonprofit media organization dedicated to telling the personal and professional stories of women business owners — and to exploring the role of entrepreneurship in advancing women’s economic independence. They are completely independent of and outside the control of the person in question (Linda Michelle Darnell). The Story Exchange is a well respected site; coverage by them certainly qualifies as "Notable"

The second one, http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/08/libertarian-party-wins-more-than-a-dozen Reason is an independent media organization which is completely separate of and outside the control of the person in question (Linda Michelle Darnell). Reason is a significant media organization; coverage by Reason is certainly enough to make someone "notable".

The third one, https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4600618/michelle-darnell-brings - C-SPAN, an acronym for Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network, is an American cable and satellite television network that was created in 1979 by the cable television industry as a public service. It is also completely independent of the person in question (Linda Michelle Darnell), and is a well-established channel, of which an appearance on, is certainly qualified as "notable".

Wikipedia's own page on Notability defines it: "Notability is the property of being worthy of notice, having fame, or being considered to be of a high degree of interest, significance, or distinction. It also refers to the capacity to be such. Persons who are notable due to public responsibility, accomplishments, or, even, mere participation in the celebrity industry are said to have a public profile." Based on the evidence presented here, the person in question (Linda Michelle Darnell) is worthy of notice, for being a woman who ran in a state election and garnering significant numbers of votes; She has fame as her actions have been covered by at least three separate and independent sources; she is of a high degree of significance for being a woman who has run in several difficult elections against much better funded opponents; regarding capacity, she certainly has the capacity for further demonstrations of these qualities.

Based on all this, I recommend that this page be retained; I would also recommend that editors follow Wikipedia guidelines in that an attempt should be made to improve an article before suggesting that it be deleted - and regarding notability, that additional sources should be searched for if this is the main concern. see /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating:_checks_and_alternatives Joezasada ( talk) 17:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Being a non-winning candidate for office is not a notability criterion — a person has to win the election and thereby hold office, not just run for it and lose, to clear WP:NPOL, but this makes no claim that she has preexisting notability for any other reason. And the depth of reliable source coverage shown here is not adequate to get her over WP:GNG in lieu, as Joezasada claims above: of the six footnotes, one is a clarifying note rather than a reference; two are her own primary source content about herself, which cannot support notability at all; two (Reason and The Story Exchange) just glancingly namecheck her existence in stories in which she is not the subject; and the C-SPAN reference isn't coverage about her but merely a one-minute video clip of her speaking. These do not represent coverage about her — they represent the kind of purely run of the mill sources that any candidate in any election could always show, not evidence that her candidacy was somehow a special case over and above everybody else's. Bearcat ( talk) 18:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Losing candidates for political offices do not meet the notability guidelines under WP:NPOL, and there is not significant, reliable sourced coverage of the subject to pass WP:GNG. And, coverage of the subject's electoral campaign is considered one event, see WP:BLP1E. -- Enos733 ( talk) 17:46, 14 November 2017 (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 Nathanson, but no consensus about Young.  Sandstein  19:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Paul Nathanson

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because [of the same reason]:

Katherine K. Young (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough. I initially did this as a prod but the template was removed and a list of additional refs added to the talk page but I still think it's too thin. The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 08:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 09:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The articles are stubs, but the authors are notable based on several reliable sources. Mattnad ( talk) 09:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The "sources" above not only don't rise above namechecks, some of them don't even appear to mention the subjects. Given the amount of noise MRAs make, the lack of substantive coverage of these two is striking evidence that they and their work are not considered especially important. Guy ( Help!) 10:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Young, weak delete Nathanson. The Telegraph and Vancouver Sun articles linked above are in-depth sources about Young and her works (the others, I agree, are not sufficiently in-depth to count for anything, and the Sun story does not help provide notability for Nathanson). In addition I found (and added to the article) five published reviews of her monograph on Hinduism. That goes a long way towards WP:AUTHOR, I think, even though the monograph had two other coauthors. — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Young she meets the WP:PROF standards by her books; Principal editor of Her voice, her faith : women speak on world religions which worldcat shows in over 1100 libraries. The volumes of the Misandry.. series , from a significant academic publisher, are each of them also in over 1000 libraries. The academic book reviews show her other books significant also,so she meets both WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. The references David E indicates are sufficient for her to also meet WP:GNG. As for Nathanson, based on theavailable information, he's a junior author. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Is there anything after 2002 that wasn't printed by McGill-Queen's University Press, her own university?
Does 1,000 libraries globally constitute a lot? -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 12:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Are you Wikipedia's designated expert on how many libraries are required for notability? Seems to me your concern is less about notability than scrubbing Wikipedia of people another editor called MRAs. I suspect that's really what's going on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.48.94.208 ( talk) 23:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Are you Wikipedia's designated expert on how many libraries are required for notability? Nope, that's why I asked the question. Young's blp already had notability template added to it in June 2014 and not by me – diff. If you know of any MRAs who don't already have blps on Wikipedia then feel free to create them, just make sure they are notable. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 00:50, 16 November 2017 (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. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 12:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Paul Meier (author)

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

BLP with reference only to his own website Rathfelder ( talk) 08:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Google turns up only a dialect coach with the same name. All the links to his own website or otherwise have shuffled off this mortal coil and gone to meet their maker. The only thing I could find on him was a forum discussion suggesting that he's a charlatan. Not looking good. No evidence aside from his own website to suggest he's been on Oprah! Famous dog (c) 13:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I cannot find sufficient coverage of him within reliable sources to make any real claim at notability. He's prolific, but not notable. -- Jack Frost ( talk) 11:00, 13 November 2017 (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. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 12:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Board of Certification for Emergency Nursing

Board of Certification for Emergency Nursing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article doesn't cite any sources; probably violating NPOV Simranpreet singh ( talk) 07:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 08:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 08:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 08:21, 9 November 2017 (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. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 08:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Muttahida Quami Movement Pakistan Sarzameen Party

Muttahida Quami Movement Pakistan Sarzameen Party (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

there is no such party. this is clearly WP:CRYSTALBALL. the two parties have agreed to form an alliance however the name of the alliance is not yet decided. Saqib ( talk) 07:28, 9 November 2017 (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 delete. And there is a draft for this article at Draft:Mustafa Jamal. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Mustafa Jamal

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

clearly autobio written by the subject himself. fails GNG. Saqib ( talk) 06:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:40, 9 November 2017 (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 Userfied to User:Fjohnstone96/Data Justice. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Data Justice

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

Lack of established research and google search return. Very little amount of publishings concerning the topic. Seems arbitrarily defined. Ueutyi ( talk) 06:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  18:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

List of pioneers in computer science

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

To me, this article is pretty clearly WP:OR, and definitely original synthesis. As a case in point, there is a pages-and-pages long debate on the talk page about who "deserves" recognition, which is not rooted in reliable sources of any kind. Wikipedia is not a hall of fame. Lists should be based on objective, recognized criteria. CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 08:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 08:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Actually, there is no consensus on whether to adopt that approach, nor on which awards should be included if that approach is adopted, nor whether receipt of such an award should be a necessary criterion for inclusion or merely an adequate criterion. Zazpot ( talk) 21:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
There is an on going discussion that seems to be leaning in the direction I stated above, with specifics being ironed out. It has not ended without consensus. Icewhiz ( talk) 21:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
That's your view, but I'm not the only person who is sceptical of your judgement here. We'll have to agree to disagree about it. Zazpot ( talk) 21:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
OK, I mean, I would argue that most of those categories should be deleted too, as they seem to be a way of ranking or judging people rather than categorizing them by any encyclopedic criterion. "Pioneer" seems to me a very subjective and loaded term. CapitalSasha ~ talk 18:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Shawn in Montreal's point about existing categories seems to reduce to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Zazpot ( talk) 21:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ Shawn in Montreal: Unfortunately it is not yet clear what this list is supposed to be. Some editors want the "father or mothers" definition, some want "winners of certain major awards in computing", and others seem to want "notable but more notable than just having a wiki article" (including an apparently failed RFC to include "overcoming of social barriers present within the field"). Despite User:Icewhiz's claim that the discussion is leaning towards the inclusion criterion being having won one of a select group of awards I'm not at all convinced that the inclusion criteria are settled, or even leaning. Meters ( talk) 18:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt. The article is in serious breach of Wikipedia policy. Its edit history shows deliberate, repeated removal of many of the women present (despite Wikipedia's known concerns about systemic bias), and its talk page bears evidence of editors effectively proposing quite serious breaches of policy. (Note: I assume these editors were acting in good faith, but that they simply did not realise just how deeply opposed to policy their suggestions were.) Examples:
Compare the suggestions above with actual Wikipedia guidance:

Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors.

—  WP:VERIFIABILITY

[Be] aware of original research when selecting the criteria for inclusion: use a criterion that is widely agreed upon rather than inventing new criteria that cannot be verified as notable or that is not widely accepted.

—  WP:LISTV#INC

It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one.

—  WP:LEADFORALIST

Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources.

—  WP:LISTCRITERIA
Several editors besides me have called out the bias shown in this article's edits and talk page (thank you): Andy Dingley here, SemanticMantis here and here, and David Eppstein here.
The key issue, though, is that there is no pristine, bias-free means to establish what constitutes a "pioneer" of, or a "transformative breakthrough" in, computer science (or computing, or electronics, per the lede). A much better alternative to keeping this article would be simply to categorise relevant articles as is standard practice, and to have Wikipedia articles for each notable award in the field. This would let us completely avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, while upholding WP:VERIFIABILITY and (I hope!) reducing contentiousness.
Zazpot ( talk) 20:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
No, I did not suggest that it "should be" an unofficial hall of fame. You truncated my quote at its start and at its end. Please don't do that. Here is my exact quote: "It's like an unofficial but important Wikipedia-based hall of fame, so we should be careful to get it right, and the people who care about this page seem to be going in that direction." See how quoting the whole thing in context changes the meaning you gave it? Randy Kryn ( talk) 06:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I don't see that adding the rest of your quote changes the meaning one iota. There should never be a "Wikipedia-based hall of fame" within Wikipedia (because Wikipedia is not a primary source), and so there is nothing to "get right" about such a thing. Zazpot ( talk) 12:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Zazpot, I did not suggest nor would I advocate a Wikipedia based hall-of-fame, you said in your original post that I "suggested" it "should be". I was making a statement about how it might look to someone, not that it is or should be. That you missed the subtlety here might be also why you miss the concept of the page and think women and others should be added on the basis of their sexual identification rather than on the basis of their work as major and field-changing computer-related originators. The present criteria seems clear: "a list of individuals who made transformative breakthroughs in the creation, development and imagining of what computers and electronics could do". Any decision about inclusion should be on the basis of 'transformative breakthrough', not on a sexual or national formula. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Randy Kryn, you seem to be saying that the second instance of the singular neuter pronoun ("it") in your quote referred to something other than the first instance did, and indeed to a concept that you did not even mention in your quote. I.e. that instead of referring to an "unofficial Wikipedia-based hall of fame", your second instance was instead referring to "selection criteria"? If so, then I appreciate your clarification, but feel that the issue is not that I misunderstood the meaning of your sentence, but that you did not write what you meant to convey. Zazpot ( talk) 14:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The 'it' you've pointed out referred to the list, not that it 'should be' something to the inclusion of all the other things it is or could be. The 'like' in the sentence means it resembles-but-is-not. The 'is' in the sentence in this post depends what the "meaning of the word 'is' 'is'", to coin a phrase. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Sigh. It is not canvassing to notify editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Zazpot ( talk) 22:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
When you chose to notify 4 particular users (and two possibly non neutral user groups) who happend to agree with you at some point in the article TP, while not posting the same at other users' talk - you are choosing a possibly partisan group, which is the definition of canvassing. Icewhiz ( talk) 22:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I was wondering if Zazpot was canvassing. (I was going to comment here anyway and already had the page on my watchlist before being "canvassed") Tornado chaser ( talk) 02:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN as one can immediately find entire books about it, including:
  1. International Biographical Dictionary of Computer Pioneers
  2. Pioneers of the Computer Age: from Charles Babbage to Steve Jobs
  3. The Computer Pioneers: The Making of the Modern Computer
  4. Computer Pioneers
  5. American Computer Pioneers
  6. Giants of Computing: A Compendium of Select, Pivotal Pioneers
  7. Pioneers of Computing
  8. The Man who Invented the Computer: The Biography of John Atanasoff, Digital Pioneer
Andrew D. ( talk) 21:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
That aspect of WP:LISTN isn't the only issue of concern here. Please look at the discussion above. Thanks, Zazpot ( talk) 21:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The comments Zazpot makes above are rather irrelevant, and way off-beam. The list should be based on WP:RS, and those clearly exist. So anyone listed as a 'Pioneer' in a book on 'Pioneers' of computing can easily be regarded as a Pioneer, and could go in the list, whether male or female, with refs cited. That wouldn't be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. The fact there was discussion on the Talk page of how the List could be structured is a good thing, and it's nonsensical for him/her to state: The article is in serious breach of Wikipedia policy, even if some of the suggestions on the Talk Page were a bit off-beam. Had the list been full of redlinked names, there might be some merit in that assertion. It's a shame editors can't cooperate on maintaining what should be a really useful and informative list of names and contributions in a helful, sortable order. But to suggest WP:SALT indicates there's an 'out-to-get-this-page' mentality, and that's a real shame. If there is a genuine attempt to expurgate women from this List that would be a grave concern and should be brought up elsewhere, with sanctions considered if proven. But, as is stated below, " AfD is not for cleanup" Nick Moyes ( talk) 23:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nick Moyes, "The comments Zazpot makes above are rather irrelevant, and way off-beam." I can see how I might look a little unhinged to someone coming at this with fresh eyes. "The list should be based on WP:RS, and those clearly exist. So anyone listed as a 'Pioneer' in a book on 'Pioneers' of computing can easily be regarded as a Pioneer, and could go in the list, whether male or female, with refs cited. That wouldn't be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH." A month ago, I, too, thought the matter was as simple as that. Let me explain how I went from that position to "delete and salt".
A month ago, sharing your view that anyone listed as a "pioneer" in a source on "pioneers" of computing could go on the list, whether male or female, with refs cited, I posted a list of some such sources to the talk page. These sources were reputable: the SIGCSE Bulletin, The Ada Project (of Yale and Carnegie Mellon University), and two newspapers of record (The Guardian and The Telegraph). Those sources were rejected by other editors on spurious grounds, such as that the lists were " large, and almost ... exclusively mention women", or that the women they contained weren't really pioneers even though the sources explicitly described them as such.
Over the course of the last several weeks, the pattern of denying the authority of WP:RS, and advocating inclusion or removal based on editors' expertise or on WP:SYNTH methods such as number of citations in the literature became increasingly serious, and people (especially women) were being deleted despite appearing as pioneers in WP:RS:
(I will flesh out this table as time allows - maybe next week. Feel free to contribute.)
Person deleted Characterised in pioneering terms by Notable why? Inclusion criticised by Deleted by
Kathleen McNulty Mauchly Antonelli
  • "Pioneering Women in Computing Technology". Carnegie Mellon University.
  • Schwartz, Juliana; Casagrande, Lindamir Salete; Leszczynski, Sonia Ana Charchut; de Carvalho, Marilia Gomes (2006). "Women in computer science: who have been the pioneers?". Cad. Pagu (27): 255–278. doi: 10.1590/S0104-83332006000200010.
  • "Women in Technology Hall of Fame, 1997 inductees: ENIAC programmers".
 One of just six original programmers of ENIAC, the first general-purpose electronic digital computer. One of the inventors of subroutines. [1]
Jean Jennings Bartik "For pioneering work as one of the first programmers, including co-leading the first teams of ENIAC programmers, and pioneering work on BINAC and UNIVAC I." [2]
Sophie Wilson Created the most widely-used microprocessor instruction set in the world: that of the ARM processor. No-one

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9nd0AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT432
  2. ^ "Betty Jean Jennings Bartik: 2008 Computer Pioneer Recipient". IEEE.
That was when it began to dawn on me that this wasn't simply a WP:CONTENTDISPUTE, it was really a dispute about whether to forge ahead with an article whose editors seemed to be forming a consensus that the basis for inclusion should be WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, in defiance of core policies like WP:VERIFIABILITY, and in which mischief like removing all citations for an entry or removing women was considered to be in keeping with the article's intent. An article like that has no place in Wikipedia now or ever, IMO. Hence my "delete and salt" position. Zazpot ( talk) 16:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
This is beginning to get ridiculous. We're not going to delete a page just because you've got some content bone to pick. Please do not flesh out your list. What this or that editor did has nothing to do with deletion. E Eng 17:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict)Agreed. Concerns should be on the Talk Page, Zazpot, and I can see you do really care. But this page is solely for WP:AFD discussion. I think there may need to be a WP:RFC, and possibly concerns over editing practiced raised at WP:ANI. But lets stick to AfD matters here, please. Nick Moyes ( talk) 18:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nick Moyes, thanks. I have already raised several concerns on the talk page, without much success. As for what's relevant to the AfD, the point that I am making (along with CapitalSasha and Tornado chaser) is that the edit history of the article and its talk page show that this article does not have selection criteria [that are] unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources, is unlikely to gain them, and therefore should not be kept.
About the editing practices themselves: if you are (or anyone else is) in a position to help with an intervention of some kind, I would appreciate it. With any luck it would succeed in reducing WP:OR, etc, but would be a lot of work to take on, and I can't spare the time at the moment :( Plus, it's probably better for it to be led by someone relatively uninvolved. Thanks again, Zazpot ( talk) 18:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The actions of those editors illustrate the difficulty (impossibility?) of achieving consensus on inclusion/removal criteria, and on having a WP:VERIFIABLE, encyclopaedic article on this topic. This in turn speaks to whether or not the article should be kept.
The actions of those editors are also germane to Nick Moyes's comment above, "If there is a genuine attempt to expurgate women from this List that would be a grave concern and should be brought up elsewhere, with sanctions considered if proven." Where else would you suggest I raise this? Zazpot ( talk) 17:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
On the article's talk page. You're just going to have to make your case that this or that person should be included, or help thresh out inclusion criteria. Your accusation that someone's out to expunge women is paranoid. E Eng 9:39 am, Today (UTC−8)
EEng, please be WP:CIVIL. I have removed your personal attack. Zazpot ( talk) 18:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Zazpot, you mean Your accusation that someone's out to expunge women is paranoid.? If you want to start the PA-crybaby game, your talk of other editors' deliberate, repeated removal of many of the women present, like it's some kind of conspiracy, is the PA, and indeed paranoid. If you disagree take it to ANI and see what kind of laugh you get. I've restored my post; do not fuck with other editors' posts again. E Eng 11:16 am, Today (UTC−8)
I have already provided diffs to justify my characterisation of the edits as "deliberate, repeated removals". These removals were discussed on the article's talk page, conducted without consensus, and then repeated after being reverted, so it is hard to think of a more accurate, neutral characterisation. Zazpot ( talk) 02:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Your mass additions of figures, based on their social attributes, that included game programmers and the first XYZ to receive a PhD, were roundly rejected on the talk page. A still open RfC shows little support for such inclusion criteria. I was acting within consensus. Icewhiz ( talk) 05:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC) Correction - most of the initial additions were done by an IP user (who seemed to know what they were doing). The additions were subsequently defended by Zazpot on the TP, to the objections of many editors, as well as reverting attempts by other users on the page. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
"Your mass additions of figures..." Kindly withdraw that comment. I have never added anyone to the list. Zazpot ( talk) 12:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The mass addition of women to the list was made on Oct 1 by 73.164.124.62 ( talk · contribs). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I removed Sophie Wilson as her inclusion was inconsistent with the exclusion of similar caliber early home-computer / 80-90s microprocessor innovators (e.g. Steve Furber which was on her team, Steve Jobs & Steve Wozniak, etc.) - it is really a discussion to be had on the talk page - but we should be consistent regardless of sex/LGBT status. Some other additions such as: Carla Meninsky, Mary Shaw (computer scientist), Sister Mary Kenneth Keller, or Megan Smith were simply beyond any defense. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Sophie Wilson is increasingly described as a computing pioneer in WP:RS. Whether or not any other person is not on the list is irrelevant: see WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. In the context, it is not hard to see why your deletion of her looked like the unjustified deletion of a woman along with a lot of other women, at least partly on the basis that they were women, rather than based on an assessment of WP:RS in each case. (FWIW, lest anyone think I oppose to Steve Furber's inclusion in the list: I do not. Furber is widely hailed as a computing pioneer in WP:RS and thus should be deserving of a place on the list under any reasonable criteria, if the list is kept.) Zazpot ( talk) 13:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Sophie Wilson's claim to fame was designing the ARM processor, but she wasn't the only one who worked on designing it, and none one else is listed as a pioneer. At one time Wilson was also credited with writing BBC Basic, which is certainly not that notable. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Wilson was indeed part of a team in Acorn Computers (which developed early home computers in the UK, as well the beginning of the ARM architecture (which achieved success - much later, at the time MIPS reigned queen of RISC). I can see the case of the inclusion of Wilson - however inclusion was inconsistent with the lack of inclusion of similar figures from the late 70s-80s-early 90s who dealt with computer architecture (e.g. John L. Hennessy is out) and home systems - the list is basically devoid of any of these (there are a number of "firsts" on the way to first PC). This should be discussed however in the scope of inclusion criteria on the TP, not here. Icewhiz ( talk) 20:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
There are also books called "the 100 best X in category Y" but we don't have wikipedia articles about that.... CapitalSasha ~ talk 15:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • CapitalSasha doesn't name any specific books or articles. I listed relevant books above and they support my position. Now, here's a list of similar articles for other fields. These likewise support my position and so my !vote stands.
  1. List of railway pioneers
  2. List of aviation pioneers
  3. List of Internet pioneers
  4. List of pioneering solar buildings
  5. List of early settlers of Rhode Island
  6. List of the oldest newspapers
Andrew D. ( talk) 17:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    • If you want specifics, I will point out that we don't have an article called "List of best vegan recipes" despite the existence of [32].... I would say the difference between the lists you cite and others is that they should, in principle, list all innovators in those fields who are notable enough for Wikipedia. We already have List of computer scientists, so "List of computer science pioneers" is always going to be "picking the best" from that list, which is inherently POV/OR. CapitalSasha ~ talk 23:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Amazon's list of "best vegan recipes"... right... You do yourself no favors with a stupid strawman like that. E Eng 01:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
To me a "pioneer" is just a "best scientist" so the analogy seems to work.... CapitalSasha ~ talk 03:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Hopeless. E Eng 04:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Given the amount of time you've spent here insulting me, one might think you'd have had a chance to actually present an argument. But no matter, I think probably the core disagreement between me and others on this page is that we have a different sense of the connotations of the word "pioneer", and I should have understood earlier that my view of it as being an aggrandizing/hero-worshipping term seems to not be in line with others' sense of the language. CapitalSasha ~ talk 04:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Yes, you should have understood that earlier. Way earlier. Others have presented plenty of good arguments, so I need not bother. As to the point at hand, "best vegan recipes" involves a sensory evaluation impossible to pin down, which is completely different from historical evaluation of the key workers in a well-documented young technical field; to draw an analogy between these two is absurd. E Eng 05:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I don't see the distinction between "hammering out criteria" and original synthesis/personal judgment, that's my issue. (And please let's try to keep the conversation civil, I know your comment isn't intended as a personal attack but it can feel that way. :) ) CapitalSasha ~ talk 15:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Oh, for Christ's sake, you've wasted a large chunk of editor time by making this silly nomination. With your limited experience you should have consulted one or two more experienced editors first before putting the ponderous AfD machinery into motion. Will you be nominating List of aviation pioneers, List of Internet pioneers, Category:Radio pioneers, Category:Automotive pioneers, and List of railway pioneers as well? E Eng 16:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
EEng, please WP:KEEPCOOL. At least three longstanding editors had discussed the idea of taking the article to AfD before CapitalSasha did so. See the article's talk page. Zazpot ( talk) 18:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Give diffs. Your inexperience seems to extend to the point of not knowing what constitutes experience. E Eng 11:16 am, Today (UTC−8)
Sure: Meters and I had this discussion; Tornado chaser chimed in here. Zazpot ( talk) 02:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
What your links show is:
  • Meters telling you Disagreement over inclusion criteria is not a reason for deletion... If you think this should be deleted then take it to AFD, but I suggest that you will need more than just this weak argument (emphasis added since you seem to have missed it the first time).
  • With less than 3K article edits, Tornado chaser is hardly the kind of editor I was suggesting you consult.
Stop fucking with others' posts [33]. The next time you do that I'll simply undo all your changes back to before you did that. E Eng 05:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I would be inclined to delete those pages and categories too, yes. Wikipedia should not be in the business of anointing people "pioneers" any more than it should be in the business of anointing people "heroes" or "success stories". If you want to criticize me personally, maybe that's a better topic for my talk page, to avoid derailing this discussion.... CapitalSasha ~ talk 22:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Though I did not and still do not entirely agree with Meters's characterisation, I did and still do entirely understand what Meters said. Note that I did not open this AfD. Re: Tornado chaser, you didn't suggest that I consult anyone. Six months and ~7K+ constructive edits is far more than most registered users seem to achieve (which is sadly unsurprising, given the uncivil nature of all too much treatment of other editors on Wikipedia). I'll follow WP:RPA - "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor" - and I respectfully ask you to leave those edits as they are. Let's stay on-topic, thanks. Zazpot ( talk) 13:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
QED. E Eng 22:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- The article is a mess at present, but has the merits of providing a place where this is an overview of a complicated subject. A major issue is the order, which is partly chronological and partly alphabetic; I would recommend that it should be chronological, according to the dates of successive breakthroughs. On the other hand, I do not think the tag for references is at all appropriate. The right place to look for references is in the bio-article on each individual. Encumbering a list with loads of references will detract from its usefulness. (I came to this because I watch history AFDs). Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
WP:LISTCRITERIA says, "In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed ... it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item." So references should be included. Zazpot ( talk) 17:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The problem with a chronological ordering is that some don't have a definite date. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep at least pending a final decision about what the inclusion criteria are going to be. Some of the possible criteria appear to make for an acceptable list, so it's premature to AFD this. Content disagreements and discussions of inclusion criteria, no matter how protracted, are not a reason for deletion. Meters ( talk) 06:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The term "pioneer" has some pedagogic value. Here, however, it appears to obscure the history. There is some place for a list of topics under "advances in computer science", bearing in mind that it is a young discipline. What is not great is that a list of associated people can be seen as functioning as recognition of individuals. In an engineering subject that is potentially a terrible idea, anyway. The point about list inclusion criteria should be well taken by everybody. I think we'd get a much better result with the columns interchanged, so that the list is one of advances. Clearly notable advances only should be considered, and those attributable to particular groups, teams or individuals. So stored-program computer rather than Max Newman, to put it in a nutshell. Having Bletchley Park referenced only under his name is nonsense, really. So, having thought about it, I conclude that the original version from 2005 has not been much improved as a guide by its existence as a free-standing list, over a dozen years. Time to refactor the content, under a different title, and in conformity with best practice. Charles Matthews ( talk) 11:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Editing others' comments
From Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable, the section "Editing others' comments":
"Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.
Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request. " Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. –  Joe ( talk) 17:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. My first reaction was that this topic is indeed begging for WP:OR, because "pioneer" is a slippery and subjective term. For one, given that the basic requirement for a doctorate is to make an original contribution to knowledge, all academic scientists must have "pioneered" something, however minor. But per Andrew D.'s comment above, there does appear to be a substantial body of reliable sources that discuss this group, and while the article is not currently in the best state, discussions on the talk page indicate that it's on the way to being brought into line with our core content policies. So it's a keep for me, but stressing that I'd hate to see this AfD taken as a precedent that all "List of pioneers in <field>" articles are acceptable. That seems like a very dubious and unencyclopaedic cross-categorisation to be getting into, and I think we should avoid them unless there is solid and specific sourcing for a particular case. –  Joe ( talk) 18:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - lest it be too encyclopedic for an encyclopedia. Seriously - of course we should keep it. Atsme 📞 📧 04:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the choice of who belongs, being conducted on the talk page, is original research. Would we allow "Pioneers of the english language"? Nope. I would be fine with "notable contributors to computer science." 198.58.171.47 ( talk) 07:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
That would be a simple rename, which would be OK with me. The pioneers of the English language are lost in history. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Hengist and Horsa, surely—but wouldn't a list of "notable" computer scientists simply duplicate list of computer scientists? –  Joe ( talk) 09:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
This page's present criteria, "individuals who made transformative breakthroughs in the creation, development and imagining of what computers and electronics could do" rests on the word "transformative". Those type of major discoveries and breakthroughs are usually well sourced, and those sources can be found on the Wikipedia page of each of the people listed. It's a wonderful list and an accurate name, full of history and discovery and the leap which was the advance of the human race from the fire age to the electronic age. "Transformative" means something, and should not be taken lightly. Meeting the "Transformative" bar, by its very definition and promise, denotes who should be listed as a pioneer, not original research but carefully following the sources and the field's historians. Randy Kryn ( talk) 18:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Randy Kryn: I don't agree that that is the present criterion. There was a proposal on the talk page [34] along those lines (but not the exact words that you are supposedly quoting) but that discussion has been sidetracked by this premature AFD. The fact that you agreed with the proposal [35] does not mean that you get to declare consensus. This is not the place to discuss the criterion or criteria, just to decide if the article should be deleted. The AFD was started because the inclusion criteria are not clear, and the talk page discussion stalled as soon as this AFD started, so I fail to see how you can possible claim that that the issue is decided. it seems to me that the AFD will likely to close as keep. Once it does we can go back to fixing the list. If it should happen to close as "delete" or merge then the inclusion criteria are moot. Meters ( talk) 22:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The reason I mentioned it is that the language was put on the page on November 2 and not changed since. I realize the criteria has to be totally talked out, but I'd think the language will land somewhere close to that. Randy Kryn ( talk) 22:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
There is a far cry between your opinion of what you think the wording will end up resembling, and flatly declaring what the currently criteria are. That's misleading, at the very least. Meters ( talk) 22:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment There seems to be some traction/hint of a concensus regarding renaming. "Notable persons in Computer Science"? 198.58.171.47 ( talk) 02:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Not in my book. That would be a much, much broader list. This is for the Babbages and von Neumanns, not your run-of-the-mill, everyday, nose-to-the-grindstone, great-in-the-classroom-but-what's-he-done-lately worker-bee hacks like David Eppstein. FBDB E Eng 03:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
No - as in wikispeak notable is someone with a wiki article (i.e. meeting notability guidelines) - that would be a huge list of fairly little value. Pioneer could perhaps be replaced with some other term, but not notable. Icewhiz ( talk) 08:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject of the article does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines at this time. Mz7 ( talk) 10:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

The Sonia Uribe Files

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

Fails WP:GNG. No sources other than two external links: the official website, which is a dead link; and the IMBD page, which doesn't even list a single completed episode. The first episode was to be on the Loch Ness Monster, but I can't even confirm that that episode was ever finished production, let alone aired. I can find no reliable independent sources at all for this show. Meters ( talk) 05:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete Per nom. Not even blogs on it. Galobtter ( talk) 06:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • There is nothing reliable about this show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan1973 ( talk • contribs) 10:01, November 9, 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Juan1973:I don't disagree with your view on deleting the article, but weren't you one of the major contributors to it in the first place, and in fact your only edits in ten years on Wikipedia have been to the Sonia Uribe articles? Bit strange now telling Wikipedia they shouldn't have the article. Richard3120 ( talk) 00:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I noticed the same thing.... Meters ( talk) 01:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I didn't mean to imply that I thought anything nasty was going on now. I noticed, assumed there had had likely been a bit of COI promotion 10 years ago, and was happy to see the support tor deletion now. If anything, I was surprised that the user could still login after 10 years. Meters ( talk) 07:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject of the article does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines at this time. Mz7 ( talk) 10:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Sonia Uribe

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

Opening this for User:Central2017 who claims "I am the article subject, and I regard myself as a non-notable, private person, and I want this page to be deleted" but does not understand how to complete a proper AFD. I have explained that this is not a sufficient reason for deletion, and given OTRS contact info for proving her identity. Having said that, I'm nominating this for deletion as failing WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. The article is almost unsourced, with nothing but a dead link to the subject's own website and a pic and passing mention in the click bait "The 50 Hottest Columbian Women". She apparently hosted The Sonia Uribe Files but that seems to have been very short lived. All I can find is one episode from 2008. I have not found the significant coverage in independent reliable sources to justify an article on this woman. Meters ( talk) 04:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete Barely even mentions exist of her. Galobtter ( talk) 06:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete There is nothing recent about her in many years. — Juan1973 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 09:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC). reply
@ Shawn in Montreal: I provided the OTRS contact information, but I have no access to see if the user has contacted OTRS (and based on the lack of familiarity with Wikipedia I suspect that there has been and will be no formal request). Since the article is more than 11 years old I thought it was worth taking to AFD to make sure I wasn't missing something. It looks like everyone is in agreement though. Meters ( talk) 07:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK1; nominator was unaware of WP:PM and proposes a merge, not deletion. Potental merges can be discussed there. The Bushranger One ping only 06:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Marijuana policy of the Donald Trump administration

Marijuana policy of the Donald Trump administration (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article largely covers a single press conference and three states' response to that single press conference. It the topic is noteworthy but not deserving of its own article. There are single articles for the administration's policy on immigration and the economy, but a separate one for marijuana? Seems rather silly to me. The content should be stripped down and merged into Social policy of Donald Trump. Instaurare ( talk) 04:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi Instaurare, perhaps it's a dumb question, but if the content should be stripped down and merged, why are you proposing a deletion instead of a formal merge? Regards, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 05:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I may be the dumb one. I have seen many AfDs where merge was the final result, so I didn't know there was a formal merge process. Instaurare ( talk) 03:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Even the nominator seems to think so "It the topic is noteworthy but not deserving of its own article." and seems to be only proposing a merger, which is why I !voted speedy keep. Galobtter ( talk) 14:03, 9 November 2017 (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. Mz7 ( talk) 10:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

TAXAB

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

New organization without notability, fails WP:ORG. References don't establish notability, merely announce campaign launch, but no lasting legacy (yet). P 1 9 9   ✉ 18:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I find the following source [36] and others around the same date, which to me seem borderline in terms of establishing notability. I leave to others more familiar with the Indian press environment to judge. Martinp ( talk) 13:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 04:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

PSA Tour

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

Fails WP:NTOUR, the tour only grossed $1,294,000.00 for their entire tour of 6 shows + 4 cancellations VS 11 other groups whose single performance surpassed the PSA Tour's 6 show total. The list of future dates is noncompliant with WP:BALL Atsme 📞 📧 00:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 08:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 08:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 08:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 08:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 08:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
It's too early to decide whether PSA Tour should be deleted. In fact, the article doesn't deserve deletion anyway! 72.92.40.158 ( talk) 10:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Dear anon, you are welcome to express your opinion, but if you do so, you should not close the deletion discussion per WP:INVOLVED. In particular, you should definitely not close it before it has run its 7 days unless it is a speedy keep case, and certainly not with a summary "withdrawn nomination", which can only be done by the person who nominated the article for deletion. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 14:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The answer. Atsme 📞 📧 20:23, 9 November 2017 (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. Opinion is split on whether the sources identified are of sufficient quality to meet WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Mason Espinosa

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE local and primary coverage from his time in low-level college football and indoor football. Well below the standards for WP:NGRIDIRON. Yosemiter ( talk) 21:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. WikiOriginal-9 ( talk) 21:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Haven't taken the time to look, but there is some significant, non-routine coverage such as this. If there are other reliable sources with similar depth of coverage, this could be a WP:GNG pass. Cbl62 ( talk) 22:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC) reply
I am not sure what you mean by "should be questioned". It certainly should not be "disregarded", and I don't think that's what you're saying. My rule of thumb is that there's a sliding scale on outlets. For me small town newspapers get less weight in a WP:GNG analysis, but major metropolitan dailies and regional newspapers are entitled to substantial weight. Billings Gazette is the largest and oldest newspaper in Montana, so it's somewhere in the middle. This one article is not enough to pass WP:GNG, but a couple more of that caliber (from additional reliable, independent sources) would tilt me to call it a GNG pass. Let's see what others come up with. Cbl62 ( talk) 01:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC) reply
By should be questioned, I mean they have locality bias (slightly independent or not independent of the subject) on something that would otherwise never be covered by any other media. I do NOT mean disregard. Generally, if someone gets significant local coverage, even from multiple sources, I lump that as one GNG-worthy source. Since multiple is typically needed, I feel there must be one other source with significant depth from a widely distributed source. Otherwise, this would be filled with city high school athletes. As an example, my step-brother is the starting running back at a high school in a 100,000+ metro area and has two articles written on him in two local-only papers; one about his then-upcoming season goals and past accomplishments and another on his discussions with some Div I FBS/FCS programs. He is a local high school star but nothing more for now. That is what I call a locality sports bias and the same general rules apply to pro athletes in small regional sports per SPORTBASIC (found in bullet point number 3).

I guess I should mention that I did go through all 70 G-News hits and saw nothing substantial like the Billings article. Yosemiter ( talk) 02:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Two points. First, your concern about high school athletes is addressed in WP:NHSPHSATH which provides an express limitation on the use of local sources. This is a special and extraordinary rule that was adopted to avoid opening the floodgates to high school athlete articles; it has not been extended to higher level athletes. Second, I disagree with your assertion that multiple local sources cannot suffice. So long as the sources are independent, reliable, and consist of significant coverage beyond the routine passing references in game coverage and the like, there is no prohibition on local or regional sources. SPORTBASIC simply emphasizes that local sources need to be independent, which means that the publication must not have ties to the subject (e.g., a university newspaper is not independent when reporting on its student athletes, and a sports league's web site is not independent when reporting on one of its athletes. However, newspapers and magazines with independent editorial oversight are valid, reliable sources under GNG. Cbl62 ( talk) 02:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC) reply
My point about high school athletes (and by extension, college athletes with a different explicit statement that is like the generalized term I referred to in SPORTBASIC, that the subject needs national attention) is that semi-pro/regional-only pro athletes get the same amount (and often less) than high school/college athletes in the local news. Yet you are saying that it means more. I guess I don't see the difference in terms of independence of the source, both are only being covered because they are expected to be covered by the local media on local athletes. The only difference is that one athlete is paid. Even the local Div I school's players and its rivals in the next metro area got far more coverage in local papers than the local IFL team or any other minor league players. Yosemiter ( talk) 03:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC) reply
I think you are misunderstanding the nature of what we mean by an "independent" source, Per WP:INDEPENDENT, and in short, it means that a source must have " editorial independence" and no "financial or legal relationship with the topic." It does not mean that the Chicago Tribune or The Des Moines Register are not "independent" in their reportage on topics tied to Chicago/Des Moines. Cbl62 ( talk) 14:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
All the low-level college coverage seems to be against WP:NCOLLATH as local athlete coverage, which is exactly what was being discussed above. But then again, I may be against the consensus in my belief that local coverage (local celebrities and athletes) should be considered routine and expected coverage. The transactions covered by only local media, as far as I have seen in AfD's, have almost always been considered routine. Yosemiter ( talk) 17:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
WP:NCOLLATH is an inclusive standard, not an exclusive one. College football players can still pass muster under WP:GNG. Cbl62 ( talk) 21:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Only inclusive to a point; per NCOLLATH#3: Gained national media attention as an individual. The keyword here is national, not local. I fail to see how sports sections for the Herald-Citizen (his hometown paper, he went to Cookeville HS, hence all the titles have "UC/Upper Cummberland Connections:" at the start of each) and the The Delaware Gazette (the paper for his college town that always covers the college) is considered National.

The rest listed by WikiOriginal-9: The Erie Times-News where he played in the low level PIFL and is routine game coverage, KRTV local game coverage and happened to win offensive player of the week with only two paragraphs about what he did in that game, Cleveland 19 game coverage, Billings Gazette transaction coverage of his signing, Primary DIII athletics website about him, Erie Times-News coverage of local team, Gazette coverage of the same Offensive player of the week award with the same amount of content, and WTOC-TV coverage of the next game will have a new starter (Espinosa). I guess I still don't understand why a local-only coverage semi-pro player would be notable when it specifically calls out amateur athletes (who often get more coverage) must be nationally covered. Seems like a lowered standard. Yosemiter ( talk) 02:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply

You fundamentally misunderstand the nature of an "inclusive" vs. "exclusive" standard. Nobody is arguing he passes NCOLLATH. The argument is that he passes GNG which does not require national media sourcing. **** sigh **** Cbl62 ( talk) 02:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I find Yosemiter's arguments persuasive. I also believe notability guidelines like NCOLLATH and NGRIDIRON gives us tools to decide notability when GNG is in question. IMHO, if the subject doesn't meet the specific guideline in the area that notability is claimed then I find them non-notable unless a very clear GNG exists. I (personally) hold them to a higher standard. Ifnord ( talk) 15:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
There is no policy basis for imposing "a higher standard" than GNG on athletes, but it's not surprising that you would find Yosemiter's non-policy based and deletionist arguments persuasive given the fact that the AfD stats you tout on your user page show that (a) you vote Delete/Merge/Redirect 89% of the time; and (b) Yosemiter votes Delete/Merge/Delete a stunning 97.8% of the time. Cbl62 ( talk) 16:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
And I appear to match with consensus 85.6% of the time. Your percentage is higher. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. I respect your opinion, appreciate the effort and time of your argument, but I do not agree with it. Ifnord ( talk) 18:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Well said. We are here for the same reason, to build a better encyclopedia, and reasonable minds can and do differ at times. Cbl62 ( talk) 21:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
BTW, I am no advocate on notability for NCAA Division III football players. But Espinosa may be the best QB in Division III history and holds the all-time conference passing record with 11,069 yards. He is the very rare example of a notable Division III player. Compare Brett Elliott with 10,441 passing yards, mostly at Division III level. Cbl62 ( talk) 21:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Just for the record, this (p. 20) says Espinosa is 16th on the D3 all-time passing yards list. WikiOriginal-9 ( talk) 22:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Elliott also previously played for a DI school, made an NFL roster (without making an appearance), and started for an AFL team (which qualifies for NGRIDIRON). He is also a quarterback coach for Mississippi State. All things that gets more coverage than DIII and low end pro career. They don't look that comparable (over 300 G-News hits for Brett Elliott football vs. 72 for Mason Espinosa total). Yosemiter ( talk) 22:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply

*Keep Delete - I think being the leading DIII career passer makes him notable. I added that he's an assistant coach also, albeit for DIII Denison. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Just for the record, this (p. 20) says Espinosa is 16th on the D3 all-time passing yards list. WikiOriginal-9 ( talk) 22:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Changing my vote to delete. I misread the info - he's not the leading DIII passer, just the leading conference passer. The #2 all-time DIII passer isn't on the site, so #16 doesn't qualify either. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
"The #2 all-time DIII passer isn't on the site, so #16 doesn't qualify either". That might not necessarily be a reason to delete this article. Maybe no one has made the other article yet. WikiOriginal-9 ( talk) 23:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Agreed, yet a simple search for Josh Vogelbach shows that he also fails WP:RS and WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 07:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Actually, Tim, it's not the issue, but that simple search shows the opposite: See Josh Vogelbach. Cbl62 ( talk) 17:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of discussion but there's only been a couple of solid positions taken. Could use some more experienced editors to weigh in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train talk 07:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 ( talk) 03:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
@ The Bushranger: Does your well-crafted discussion of the "nabobs" (a term I haven't heard since Spiro Agnew's day here) mean that you support keeping this article? Cbl62 ( talk) 13:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I have no opinion on the article itself, just on the level of discussion around it. Also that's not my first mention of WP:NABOBS. ;) - The Bushranger One ping only 03:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG. That billingsgazette coverage is good. GNG trumps all - SNGs are mostly there to keep articles where sources are expected to exist - they supplement GNG. GNG - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - does not say those reliable sources have to be national. And the second highest division III passing length record-holder does indeed have an article. Galobtter ( talkó tuó mió) 14:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Article has been improved since the start of this discussion. Also the billingsgazzete.com and nationalarean league contents are more than trivial mention.  —  Ammarpad ( talk) 21:44, 17 November 2017 (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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 19:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Mondottica

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

Pretty much just COI promo. Blow it up, and maybe someone else might make an actual article, if needed. Anmccaff ( talk) 21:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  18:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Disney International HD

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

Only cover in entertainment media, TV Post, Indian Television and bestmediaifo. Per Notability nutshell: "..world at large and over a period of time...", niche media sources doesn't constitute the "world at large". This can be incubated in the The Walt Disney Company India article or as a draft until suitable notable sources can be found. Spshu ( talk) 18:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment. Second guessing nomination of it for deletion is not a reason. Any one can nominate obscure TV channels for deletion. Why didn't you? Spshu ( talk) 22:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- This is an Indian channel, and has a good amount of coverage on Indian media. it does not always have to be mentioned by huge media sources. User 261115 ( talk) 21:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- The Indian television market is not mainly covered by the media of that country. Because of that, it's actually predictable to see TV/Entertainment-centred websites talking about the channel as references instead of general major news sites. Though Twitter not being a reliable source, the channel even has its own account there with advertisements from the channel prior to its launch. Aside from that, ads for the channel have appeared on some newspapers across India ( this being an example) and even a mention to the network's name appear on the official Indian corporate site. -- Bankster ( talk) 00:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While so far all the !votes have been unanimous keeps, there isn't much citing of policy or reliable sources going on yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Progressive Property

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. The sources used in the article are either citing people from the company for quotes, or are very local coverage of the company's charity donations. Googling, I'm not finding the sort of in-depth coverage we're looking for - there's some coverage on founder Rob Moore, talking about how how he got his money and how he spends it on things like Ferraris and (less than a month later) how he totaled a Ferrari, and this fill-in-the-form "interview". The biggest things I can find on the company's work is This Spectator article which covers how scammy their efforts appear and this review claiming their classes are a scam. Nat Gertler ( talk) 00:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete It should have an article to alert people to their activities before they get involved, unfortunately there aren't the reliable sources to write such an article so we will be better off with no article than a PR piece. Philafrenzy ( talk) 21:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Can find nothing worthwhile beyond what Nat Gertler mentions above. Agree with Philafrenzy - if we cannot find enough to warn readers about the company, we should delete the article to avoid it being used as a promotional vehicle. Edwardx ( talk) 11:09, 15 November 2017 (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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 19:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Thomas E. McWilliams

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

Not notable Rathfelder ( talk) 10:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- In my view, the lede should explain and justify notability. Being an associate dean is insufficient. Is McWilliams a great educator, doctor or researcher? A Google search turns up nothing special. Rhadow ( talk) 11:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:42, 9 November 2017 (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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 19:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Robert Hostoffer

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

not notable. References mostly advertising Rathfelder ( talk) 10:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. –  Joe ( talk) 11:03, 9 November 2017 (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 Bride (band). (non-admin closure) J 947( c ) ( m) 03:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

The Jesus Experience

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

Why was this article recreated with no additional sources. It was determined to be non-notable six months ago and since it still doesn't meeth WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM, it should not have been recreated. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete G4 (assuming its substantially identical, which looks to be the case); still not notable. Galobtter ( talk) 07:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Ahh I see someone random removed the G4 tag. Shouldn't matter though, as the reasons haven't been fixed. Galobtter ( talk) 07:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Redirect Makes sense, per michig. Galobtter ( talk) 03:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No opposition to sources found. (non-admin closure) J 947( c ) ( m) 03:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Bobby Roe

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

Non-notable actor/director lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. reddogsix ( talk) 00:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have to say, I'm still unsure why this is being nominated. I don't think the reasons up top about being "non-notable" or "non-trivial" are either valid or good enough. Originally, the article was simply subjected to copyright but I don't think that was ever an issue. The error was fixed and to this day there's no violations. But now things have been taken a step further and Bobby Roe has been nominated for an unnecessary deletion. The criteria of Wikipedia has been met upon its creation and the user above makes a good point – the film is notable. -- AlexanderHovanec ( talk) 01:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 15:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_November_9&oldid=1142617676"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE