Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 12 August 14 August >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 06:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Pleasures (brand)

Pleasures (brand) (  | 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 do not think any of the sources here are sufficient for notability of this brand, nor can I find anything better. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I cleaned up the page a bit and added some additional references that I could find. 1q9x ( talk) 23:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 01:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Scale-Up Venture Capital

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

References point to routine coverage, write-ups that either don't mention the subject or only in passing, and sources which aren't considered reliable sources. A preliminary WP:BEFORE didn't appear to unearth much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
DBlogger1970 Hey there, I see you're new, so welcome! Fitting a category may mean the subject exists, but not that it's notable. I'm also gradually taking you up on your offer of nominating others in the category. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 01:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Silvia H. Allred

Silvia H. Allred (  | 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 non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to name checks and very short mentions. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources appears to exist. The article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability. See also: WP:SPIP:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– North America 1000 23:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 23:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete We don't have inherent notability standards for religious figures and, even if we did, the general presidency of the Relief Society of the LDS would certainly not meet those standards (unlike maybe the High Council). In the absence of that, this would have to meet the GNG which it does not. Chetsford ( talk) 23:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Sorry, you're right. I actually meant to say the Quorum of Twelve. Chetsford ( talk) 02:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The leadership of the LDS Church Relief Society is a top position within the Church, regularly addressing general conference, women's conferences and noted for their touring and participation in temple dedications. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – None of the above points qualifies notability as per Wikipedia's standards for notability. Subjects that the LDS church considers to be noteworthy do not get an automatic free pass for a Wikipedia article. Sorry, but one's own made-up, personal standards for notability such as the above do not align with Wikipedia notability guidelines. Per Wikipedia's notability standards, what is required is significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. Said necessary coverage does not appear to exist for this subject. North America 1000 05:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 21:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Nan Greene Hunter

Nan Greene Hunter (  | 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 subject that does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to passing mentions and some name checks. Not finding any significant coverage in independent sources to qualify an article. North America 1000 22:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Although tagged with WikiProject New Zealand, there is nothing of interest to the NZ project. NealeFamily ( talk) 00:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete did not hold a major leadership role in the Church, although she served as a missionary. And my searches found almost nothing in the way of sources. I did find "Eight distinguished BYU alumni honored for years of service," Deseret News; Salt Lake City, Utah [Salt Lake City, Utah]24 Apr 2009. It is just not enough. Searched for and failed to locate articles about the hymn she wrote, just a few videos of folks playing or singing it. Fails WP:GNG. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment A much better way to describe her postion in New Zealand is co-leader of a rotating group of about 150 missionaries at any given time. That is more than just "a missionary". Although mission presidents and their wives who co-preside with them are generally not notable for this. At least from the 1930s on when they began generally serving 3 year terms. A few people before that like John R. Moyle have their notability added to by being mission president, but generally they are notable for other things. Even Nephi Jensen would probably not have an article if it was not for his role in a state legislature. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the comments John. I took a look at the Category:American Mormon missionaries in New Zealand. From a quick sample of those mentioned, she does not seem to have the same level of merit needed to meet WP:BASIC. Most have notability from other fields. If I were taking it from a solely NZ perspective (that is assuming they had no other call to fame) Augustus Farnham and his fellow missionaries, who were first in the country, would meet the criteria based on their NZ mission being the first. Later ones would need to show something more notable than just being a missionary or in charge of a group of missionaries. Most religious organisations have people in that kind of role and they would not be notable in terms of Wiki's notability criteria unless there was something unique about them. NealeFamily ( talk) 10:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The notability argument really wrests on being a hymn writer, and weather Hunter's level of hymnwriting is notable. For what it is worth, about half the sourcing comes from the biography of her father-in-law, who clearly was notable, but that does not translate to her being notable, it does translate to her being sourceable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. Feel free to further discuss the article on its talk page, if desired. North America 1000 23:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Wreathgate

Wreathgate (  | 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 lead paragraph is one sided and misleading -- BOD -- 22:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

What's the particular instance of one-sidedness and what did you find misleading? Super-Mac ( talk) 22:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep If the lead paragraph is "one sided and misleading", why don't you just clean it up instead of deleting the whole article? Semi Hypercube ✎ 22:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I agree on the Keep, If you have a problem with text you could just change so you think it's a fair representation, not seen your issue yet though. This issue is growing in real time so updates and changes are going to become more and more necessary: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45170622 Super-Mac ( talk) 23:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

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

Hussein Al Ajami

The result was delete Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 19:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

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

We're not the yellow pages. Vexations ( talk) 22:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 22:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 22:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 06:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Blaze PR

Blaze PR (  | 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 fails WP:NCORP. Sources are generally non-reliable and not intellectually independent. Others fails to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Beyond that, the article is pretty purely advertising, and may be suitable for an appropriate speedy. Nosebagbear ( talk) 22:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus whether the subject passes WP:NPOL, and there is not enough discussion to see if the subject passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 09:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Uche Nwosu

Uche Nwosu (  | 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, doesn't fly WP:GNG Mahveotm ( talk) 14:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm ( talk) 14:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm ( talk) 14:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I interpret being the chief of staff and a commissioner to a state government as passing WP:NPOLITICIAN. Believe me, if you are not notable you won't be having major publishing houses covering you like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 all in the first page of Google search. I admire your work Mahveotm, but I feel like this nomination was a little too hasty. HandsomeBoy ( talk) 17:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Being the chief of staff and a commissioner to a state government does not passes WP:NPOLITICIAN, these are appointed position not elected ones. It even states that Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability. And mentioned by press houses (albeit not independently) because of a political ambition also does not passes WP:GNG. I'm not pro delete - I assume you already know, and did a WP:BEFORE before nominating. Mahveotm ( talk) 08:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Like the United States, Nigeria practice a federal system of government, which implies government powers being shared across federal, state and local authorities. According to WP:POLITICIAN Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature, what this means is that unelected state and federal appointees could be presumed notable depending on the significance of their office. The chief of staff of a state is a consistent respected authority present in all states in Nigeria, and solely responsible for the affairs of all staffs in a state. I consider it in the same class as the chief justice of a state in terms of the routine coverage received. He is not a local official, but a state official. He is also a former commissioner in the state.
When I have access to my PC, I'll reply you on GNG, but personally it isn't even necessary since I think NPOLITICIAN has been met. Even though my next statement sounds WP:CRYSTALBALL, I will still state it, when a sitting governor handpicks a candidate as his successor in eastern Nigeria, he usually have a 80% chance of winning, and that has led to many independent analysis by the media and questioning of their democracy by political analyst since he is related to the governor by marriage.
Let us see what other AFD commentators think. HandsomeBoy ( talk) 10:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Don't you have any pity for our eyes with that fluo text? - The Gnome ( talk) 20:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
haha..fixed it to what I initially wanted HandsomeBoy ( talk) 00:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
You shouldn't go around belittling people at AfD to achieve a point, you should also tell us HOW he passes GNG and what criterion of nPOLITICIAN was met as this is not a voting process. The above discussion with HandsomeBoy is an example of how to participate at an AfD. Mahveotm ( talk) 05:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment - I am not "belittling" anyone. I am addressing this poor nomination without regard for Wiki policy — some of which I pointed you to. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wiki policies especially WP:BEFORE—before nominating any article for AfD. Poor nominations wastes the community's time. Believe me, some editors who dislike poor nominations might have used stronger language than I have. I exercised restrain here. For your info, your condescending remarks may be viewed as a personal attack. I was commenting on this poor nomination but you turned it around and started commenting on me. Please read Wiki policies before bringing any more articles to Afd. Senegambianamestudy ( talk) 13:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Being chief of staff to a state-level politician is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL in and of itself, and the sourcing being cited here is not adequate to get him over WP:GNG. One of the three sources is primary, while another reads suspiciously more like PR bumf than journalism — and at least as of the time I'm writing this, the third takes me not to any content about the subject that I can even evaluate for its reliability or lack thereof, but to the confrontational splash page of a cyberhacker group. This is not the correct kind of sourcing to make a person notable because "media coverage exists", if what he's potentially notable for isn't an automatic guarantee of inclusion. Bearcat ( talk) 15:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
What about being a former state commissioner in addition to that? HandsomeBoy ( talk) 00:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Since his position is considered within the cabinet by the rules of Imo state, and members of a cabinet in a state in a federal republic are notable. True, we lack articles on most of them, and in fact on most cabinet ministers world-wide, possible at present, and especially if you go back to 1980, let alone 1950, but that is a different issue. I do have to point out that what US federal offices grant notability is not at all relevant to weather a specific office grants notability at the sub-national level in another country. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There's good agreement that this article needs a lot of editing. Perhaps major trimming, and/or refactoring with related articles. Possibly WP:TNT applies. There is, however, no consensus to delete it. The number of pageviews is not a factor in determining notability. On an administrative note, I'm over-riding User:Redditaddict69's relist, partly because WP:RELIST argues against a third relist, and partly because you shouldn't relist a discussion you participated in. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Appropriation (music)

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

Since the creation of this article other closely related articles such as Cultural_appropriation and Ethnomusicology have expanded to cover cultural appropriation in general and through music. There's been suggestions on the talk of the article page to delete it as this topic is already covered in other articles there should be no need to keep this poorly sourced article anymore. Other related articles like aforementioned are already covering the topic with better sources and can expanded in the future. MayMay7 ( talk) 20:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Red Phoenix talk 14:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This area obviously needs a good editor. There are three distinct concepts here: borrowing from other composers, borrowing from other genres, and borrowing from other cultures. IMHO, the last topic belongs in a non-existent cultural borrowing article, but unfortunately this is a redirect to cultural appropriation which I might characterize as a WP:POVFORK. Borrowing from other composers seems like a plausibly notable topic, but I'm out of my expertise to say for sure. The solution is editing, not deletion until someone demonstrates they're going to write something better. Daask ( talk) 19:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep – Yes, this article needs some serious reshaping, but I think the subject is notable enough and researched enough (never fails to hit 15 views daily, occasionally gets near 60) that it should be kept. I'm not opposed to a deletion then restarting immediately from scratch, but I am opposed to "salting the earth". Redditaddict 6 9 14:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third and final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict 6 9 14:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that the sources introduced during this AfD are sufficient to meet WP:GNG and/or WP:NCORP. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

FuelCell Energy

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

Previous AfD closed as "Delete" on 10 January 2014, but the article was never actually deleted recreated on 25 January 2014. Company has very little RS coverage beyond routine company profiles and stock updates. – dlthewave ☎ 12:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. –  numbermaniac 12:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. –  numbermaniac 12:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –  numbermaniac 12:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

*N/A per WP:CORPDEPTH. There are a couple of very local newspapers with non-financial information, but they focus on job creation etc, without covering actual company-oriented action etc details. All other sources that weren't covering routine info were non reliable/independent. Nosebagbear ( talk) 13:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Neutral/Pending while I consider refs Nosebagbear ( talk) 16:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 14:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Thanks for catching that. The article qualifies for G4 speedy deletion, but I thought I would give it a chance at AfD since it's been a few years. – dlthewave ☎ 15:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Yes, I had a similar view on CSDing, that given 4 years redoing the AfD seemed warranted Nosebagbear ( talk) 15:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Re-creation shortly after an AfD deletion without a review process ( WP:DRV, WP:AFC) is to be discouraged, but it is appropriate to reconsider this article here given the 4 years that have passed. The company in question continues to go about its business, as seen in the text and GreenTechMedia reference that I have added. However, while that GreenTechMedia article does show independence, for example in sceptical assessment of claims of profitability being just around the corner, I am not seeing enough to demonstrate attained WP:NCORP notability. AllyD ( talk) 14:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

    From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):

    There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.



    Analyst reports

    1. This 12 January 2018 article archive.is from StreetInsider.com notes:

      B.Riley/FBR upgraded FuelCell Energy (NASDAQ: FCEL) from Neutral to Buy with a price target of $3.50 (from $2.50).

      Analyst Carter Driscoll comments "After a difficult 1HFY17, we believe FCEL has turned a corner with an improving revenue mix, margin profile, and record backlog. We believe the company should be able to almost triple its operating portfolio from FY17 to FY18, moving from a portfolio of 11.2MW (generating electricity revenues under longterm PPAs) to over 30MW. We also believe the company should be able to garner another multiMW equipment sale and long-term service agreement with a second Korean power producer. Taken in conjunction with the 40MW of projects FCEL should develop for LIPA starting in FY19, a burgeoning relationship with Toyota for distributed hydrogen, and new fuel cell RFPs in CT, we see a more balanced revenue mix leading to higher and more sustainable margins and eventually EBITDA breakeven."

    2. This 9 February 2018 article archive.is from StreetInsider.com notes:

      Roth Capital upgraded FuelCell Energy (NASDAQ: FCEl) from Neutral to Buy, price target $4.00 (from $2.00).

      Analyst Craig Irwin cites the remediation of the 30% investment Tax Credit which he expects will help broadly improve project economics which should bring in new bookings momentum.

    3. This 1 December 2016 article archive.is from StreetInsider.com notes:

      FBR Capital reiterated a Market Perform rating on FuelCell Energy (NASDAQ: FCEL), and cut the price target to $2.50 (from $3.00), after recent setbacks cause the company to lower its F4Q16 revenue guidance. FCEL guided F4Q16 revenue to $23M–$25M, lower than consensus forecasts. Part of the reduction was from not winning any clean energy awards and part from the reclassification of a fuel cell plant constructed for Pfizer that was originally expected to be sold but will be accounted for as a sales leaseback transaction.

      Analyst Carter Driscoll commented, "This morning, December 1, FCEL lowered its F4Q16 revenue guidance after its recent setbacks regarding awards from certain clean energy RFPs. The company is cutting head count to lower its cost structure to better align production levels with its order book, cutting the annual production rate to 25 MW from 50 MW. FCEL is reducing head count by approximately 17%, or 96 positions, primarily in direct manufacturing but also some administrative positions, and taking a $3M charge in FY17, 50% of which is expected to be in cash severance costs. Additionally, the company hopes to lower operating costs and save $6M in annual opex. We believe these steps are the appropriate responses to the loss of expected awards in the aforementioned clean energy RFPs. Until we have more clarity that the reduced production levels are truly temporary in nature, we are taking a more conservative outlook for fuel cell power generation aimed at utility-scale projects and have lowered our revenue estimates and price target to $2.50 from $3.00."

    4. This 26 October 2016 article archive.is from StreetInsider.com notes:

      FBR Capital downgraded FuelCell Energy (NASDAQ: FCEL) from Outperform to Market Perform with a price target of $5.50 (from $9.00).

      Analyst Carter Driscoll commented, "Yesterday, FCEL disclosed that it did not win approval to move into contract negotiations for the 63.3 MW project located at Beacon Falls, CT. Management disclosed that there was no explanation provided as to why the project was not selected. There were several positive characteristics that appeared to position the project for success. We suspect, but have not yet been able to verify, that economics may have played a part as the award winners for the tri-state clean energy RFPs were wind and solar projects, which typically have a lower generation cost. Regardless, the loss of the project negatively impacts our FY17 revenue and margin forecasts and we have lowered estimates as a result. While we believe there are still some near-term catalysts, we are less confident in the timing of potential awards and believe the stock is in a "show-me" mode. We are stepping to the sidelines, removing FCEL as our Alpha Generator pick, cutting our price target to $5.50 from $9, and lowering our rating to Market Perform from Outperform."

    5. This 3 October 2017 article archive.is from The Fly notes:

      Oppenheimer analyst Colin Rusch started FuelCell rating and a $4 price target, calling the company a "clear leader" in stationary fuel cell applications that he believes can achieve positive operational cash flow in the next 12-18 months.

    https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NASDAQ/FCEL/price-target/ WebCite contains a list of analyst reports available under a paywall:

    Date Brokerage Action Rating Price Target Impact on Share Price Details
    6/8/2018 B. Riley Set Price Target Buy $4.00 Low Paywall link
    2/9/2018 Roth Capital Upgrade Neutral ➝ Buy $2.00 ➝ $4.00 High Paywall link
    1/11/2018 Cowen Set Price Target Buy $3.00 High Paywall link
    10/4/2017 CIBC Initiated Coverage Outperform ➝ Outperform $4.00 High Paywall link
    10/4/2017 Oppenheimer Initiated Coverage Outperform $4.00 ➝ $4.00 High Paywall link
    9/5/2017 FBR & Co Reiterated Rating Hold High Paywall link
    8/15/2017 Raymond James Initiated Coverage Market Perform Medium Paywall link
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow FuelCell Energy to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 04:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: although this company is listed, it's a micro-cap. With revenues of $185M, it's too insignificant to have generated significant coverage, resulting in a promotional article, as in:
"The company has been tapped by the Office of Naval Research to provide assistance on the Large Displacement Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (LDUUV) program"!
The project would not be significantly improved by the retention of this article. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP on the balance of things. K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: That a company is a micro-cap with revenues of $185 million does not mean that "it's too insignificant to have generated significant coverage". From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#No inherent notability:

    smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products, though articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable per WP:NOTADVERTISING.

    This company has received significant coverage in analyst reports.

    Here is even more coverage:

    1. Eisler, Matthew N. (2018-05-29). "Fuel Cells Finally Find a Killer App: Carbon Capture". IEEE Spectrum. Archived from the original on 2018-08-12. Retrieved 2018-08-12.

      This is an extensive profile of FuelCell Energy.

      The article notes:

      One of the salient facts about advanced power sources is that new products typically take decades to enter the marketplace. As more than one observer has noted, there is no Moore’s Law for batteries. Sustained government support is thus crucial. With help from the U.S. Department of Energy, FuelCell Energy was able to focus on the thankless task of improving the efficiency, cost, and durability of its molten carbonate fuel cells. After years of research and development, the company demonstrated a 2-megawatt plant in Santa Clara, Calif., which operated from 1996 to 1997. In 2003, FuelCell Energy shipped its first commercial unit. To date, it has installed several hundred megawatts of capacity in 50 locations around the world, most notably a 59-MW combined heat-and-power plant in South Korea. Today, the company is the leading provider of molten carbonate technology.

      ...

      The energy crisis and environmental movement of the 1970s brought renewed interest in all kinds of clean power, including the carbonate fuel cell. It was in this ferment that FuelCell Energy, then known as Energy Research Corp., was founded. “What we thought made the most sense was a power generation system that could run on pipeline-volume natural gas, and high-temperature fuel cells like carbonate did that,” Leo says.

    2. Wald, Matthew L. (2014-12-14). "Capturing Carbon as a Byproduct of Running a Fuel Cell". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2018-08-12. Retrieved 2018-08-12.

      The article notes:

      As [fuel cell] is piped between the stages, the gas is at 70 percent purity, and most of the other 30 percent is innocuous steam. So the engineers at the company that built the installation, FuelCell Energy, are pulling off a chemical bait-and-switch.

      ...

      In FuelCell’s design, a coal plant adds a fuel cell unit next to its smokestack, and the fuel cell soaks up the carbon dioxide and adds power to overall output. Some energy is used — the demonstration unit here would produce eight kilowatts, enough for a midsize commercial air-conditioner, but in carbon capture mode makes only about six kilowatts — but the loss is more manageable than drawing energy from the coal plant for conventional carbon capture.

      And if the Environmental Protection Agency follows through on its intent to require existing coal plants to shrink their carbon output, the company’s fuel cells could do the job in two ways, by capturing some carbon and by raising the electricity output over which the remaining carbon dioxide is spread.

      ...

      FuelCell energy is not alone in looking for a more energy-efficient way to grab carbon dioxide; other ideas are percolating.

    3. Schwartz, John (2016-05-05). "Exxon Mobil Backs FuelCell Effort to Advance Carbon Capture Technology". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2018-08-12. Retrieved 2018-08-12.

      The article notes:

      For years, FuelCell Energy has been considered a company to watch. Its technology promised to help economically reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, which could help combat climate change. The Danbury, Conn., company might be able to make a difference, experts said, if only it had a partner with really deep pockets.

      Now it has one.

      In an agreement announced on Thursday, Exxon Mobil said it had tightened an existing relationship with FuelCell in hopes of taking the technology from the lab to the market.

      ...

      FuelCell Energy’s products can also strip 70 percent of the smog-producing oxides of nitrogen from the exhaust of coal-burning power plants.

    Cunard ( talk) 01:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete In the past, Cunard has located good analyst reports. But the ones above are not "analyst reports" but comments on stock price. An analyst report provides in-depth analysis on the company. Also, the links to the articles above are not intellectually independent as per WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 20:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Analyst reports always both comment on the estimated stock price and provide in-depth analysis of the company. They do not merely comment on the price because that would not be useful to their customers who pay a lot to purchase the analyst reports.

    The quotes I presented here are only snippets from analyst reports that are under a paywall. To get the analyst reports' in-depth analysis of the company, we would need the paywall copies, which I do not have.

    There is analysis of the company in the snippets presented here. For example, the FBR Capital Markets analyst report as summarized by another source says "Part of the reduction [in price target] was from not winning any clean energy awards and part from the reclassification of a fuel cell plant constructed for Pfizer that was originally expected to be sold but will be accounted for as a sales leaseback transaction."

    And another report provides analysis of the company, saying, "Yesterday, FCEL disclosed that it did not win approval to move into contract negotiations for the 63.3 MW project located at Beacon Falls, CT. Management disclosed that there was no explanation provided as to why the project was not selected. There were several positive characteristics that appeared to position the project for success. We suspect, but have not yet been able to verify, that economics may have played a part as the award winners for the tri-state clean energy RFPs were wind and solar projects, which typically have a lower generation cost. Regardless, the loss of the project negatively impacts our FY17 revenue and margin forecasts and we have lowered estimates as a result."

    Cunard ( talk) 20:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Here is more information from another source, Smarter Analyst, about the analyst reports (bolding added to emphasize some of the analysis):
    1. This 7 June 2018 article WebCite from Smarter Analyst notes:

      Oppenheimer analyst Colin Rusch maintained a Buy rating on Fuelcell Energy (NASDAQ: FCEL) yesterday and set a price target of $4. The company’s shares closed yesterday at $1.74.

      Rusch wrote: “FCEL posted solid revenue but disappointing GM on product and generation revenue. We expect both to recover as revenue grows, especially as the company finishes liquidating high cost inventory. We continue to believe FCEL has a clear path to cash flow breakeven as it grows product sales to Korea and expands its owned project portfolio. We are encouraged by Korean customer signals, project wins in the US, and progress on securing project financing. We would not be surprised to see the company to be able to announce new orders in Korea over the coming months as it moves forward building the US portfolio. We remain constructive on the shares as we believe concerns about sustainable growth and cash burn are overblown.”

      This provides extensive analysis of the company.
    2. This 11 June 2018 article WebCite from Smarter Analyst notes:

      B.Riley FBR analyst Carter Driscoll maintained a Buy rating on Fuelcell Energy (NASDAQ: FCEL) on June 8 and set a price target of $3.50. The company’s shares closed on Friday at $1.75.

      Driscoll wrote: “CT clean energy awards the next catalyst. FuelCell Energy (FCEL) delivered F2Q18 revenues and EPS below our estimates, largely from the timing of additions to its power generation portfolio and a $0.4M charge to COGS for abandoning a small project no longer deemed economically viable. FCEL’s record backlog of $1.6B and recent ITC extension support the transition to building its power generation portfolio, which remains on track to grow almost 3X to reach over 30 MW (generating electricity revenues under long-term PPAs) by FYE18. Management detailed the financing needs and economics of a theoretical $40M project (we estimate 12 MW) that would utilize project debt for construction and FCEL’s working capital position and deliver ~40% EBITDA margins.”

    3. This 10 June 2016 article archive.is from Smarter Analyst notes:

      In a research report released today, FBR analyst Carter Driscoll reiterated an Outperform rating on shares of FuelCell Energy Inc (NASDAQ:FCEL), with a price target of $9.00, after the company missed fiscal second-quarter forecasts on lower revenue, and various one-time expenses. ...

      Driscoll wrote, “We are more cautious, near term, as project awards are slower to materialize, but we believe they will come. Weak F2Q16 results partly reflect the ongoing transition to more sale/leaseback projects, low-margin component kit sales to POSCO (which end in F4Q16), $2M in nonrecurring charges for rectifying past service contracts (hurt service margins, but should be over), and higher-than-expected product investments. Due to slower-than-expected awards from multiple RFPs that FCEL bid into in F1H16, the company cut FY16 guidance, from $170M–$210M, to $140M– $170M. We view this as a timing problem, not a demand issue.”

      “With 125MW worth of competitive bids over multiple potential projects, there is no shortage of demand; we believe FCEL stands to win at least a substantial portion of them. But the timing of awards appears tilted towards the latter part of FY16 rather than towards the current quarter,” the analyst continued.

    Cunard ( talk) 20:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would strongly urge participants to keep their comments to a reasonable size to simplify the closing editor's task.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 20:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep Cunard's sources and analysis do demonstrate that the article passes WP:GNG. Hzh ( talk) 22:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 18:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arguments for deleting this article centre on the subject's supposed lack of significance, concerns over promotionalism, and the amateur and fairly out-of-the-blue nature of this fight. Keep !votes hinge on the coverage of this subject in reliable sources. These sources are not of the sort that can be dismissed out of hand, but those arguing for deletion have not convincingly demonstrated why they should not count towards meeting WP:GNG; indeed there generally isn't much engagement with the sources among the "delete" !votes. As such, no outcome other than keeping this is possible here. Vanamonde ( talk) 07:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

KSI vs Logan Paul

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KSI vs. Joe Weller. A boxing match between two Youtubers, with insufficient non-promotional coverage. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 15:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse ( talk) 15:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. I guess my links just prove the noms point. "I also note the sources describe this as 'deeply embarrassing' and 'may be scrapped'." Not much shows that the fight is notable, if anything at all. Abequinn14 ( talk) 08:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • delete - I can see how this could provide some pop interest, but the boxers aren't professional (I'm aware this is also true at the Olympics). The first match wasn't notable, either. Even if kept, I'm not sure the title of the article is suitible. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 13:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - sufficient sources provided discussing the fight to pass GNG. The point that the fight is described as "deeply embarrassing" is irrelevant; GNG only requires coverage, not positivity. OZOO (t) (c) 10:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep easily more than enough coverage to pass the general notability guidelines. 207.164.152.162 ( talk)
  • Keep - News sources are talking about the fight in the mainstream media and as such outlets are covering the fight, it would only be fair to suggest keeping the page up. See here, here, and finally, here. -- Pokkeballs17 ( talk), 12:55, 11 August 2018, (GMT)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 22:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 22:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep due to recent involvement between the two that has attracted millions of viewers worth of attention on KSI's channel, Logan Paul's channel, other Celeb channels (e.g. PewDiePie) in addition to countless YouTube news channels and even some Mainstream Media. Currently, this page reaches 2,500 daily views without fail (possibly due to deletion nomination, but still is a ton for a deletion nomination page–those usually just get 100 daily) and sometimes passes 3,000 making it relevant enough to keep. This definitely needs a 2nd deletion nomination after the drama between the two dies down someday and this page becomes irrelevant. Redditaddict69 (click here if I screwed up stuff again) (edits) 02:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

*Keep Mainstream media coverage aswell as thousands of tickets being sold at one of the UK's largest arenas. [1] User:TheMasterGuru

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 19:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ L3X1: did you mean "Delete - fails the GNG", or "Keep - meets the GNG"? power~enwiki ( π, ν) 00:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Power~enwiki: yes. FBDB
Regards, SshibumXZ ( Talk) ( Contributions). 01:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Sorry all, I miswrote. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ RoySmith: WP:10YT isn't a reason to delete, if anything, it seems a reason to keep for the time being and see how coverage develops after the event: "Just wait and see...Editors writing today do not have a historical perspective on today's events, and should not pretend to have a crystal ball." The essay 10YT is a part of even cautions against using it as a reason for deletion, from the first section of WP:RECENTISM: "Over-use of recent material does not by itself mean that an article should be deleted...". The essay is about how to cover notable recent events, not determining the notability of an event. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 21:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep — Struck previous comment for this updated one. Mainstream media coverage (from sources such as BBC and Sky News) as well as thousands of tickets being sold at one of the UK's largest arenas. Also expecting this fight to break multiple armature boxing ticket sales (which are expected to sell out the venue with 21,000 ticket sales [2]) and views and maybe even break boxing pay-per-view numbers. In addition, multiple professional boxing personalities are involved and have taken interest. In addition to the over 50,000 page views this page has received in the past week and promises to be much higher come fight night. More than enough to pass GNG. [3] [4] TheMasterGuru ( talk) 15:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-43458905
  2. ^ https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ksi-vs-logan-paul-fight-youtube-white-collar-boxing-history-a8504841.html
  3. ^ https://news.sky.com/story/youtubers-logan-paul-and-ksi-confirm-boxing-showdown-in-manchester-11297121
  4. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/newsbeat-45284977/ksi-v-logan-paul-boxing-match-what-do-real-fighters-think-about-it
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. Deor ( talk) 22:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Mike Besser

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

Nonnotable doctor Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. So Why 19:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Anger Room

Anger Room (  | 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 is an obvious attempt at advertising with little other justification for its existence. Should have been speedily deleted when created. Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. ( talk) 00:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. the reverences ae either minor or thesort of human interest about unsusual events. This isn't as unsusual as it sounds, actually, andusing the genetal name for a particular business is undue promotionalism . DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: a directory listing for a nn company. Fails WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep - This has generated two articles in New York Times, and one in Le Monde. The further reading section I just added shows plenty of independent coverage. Daask ( talk) 19:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'm a bit concerned that we're seeing this, this, this, and this as trivial coverage. I'm not convinced that the content needs to be in this particular page; it could be a page about the phenomenon, with a section covering this particular instance; and it could possibly use a rename to addrss the "title is promotional" concern brought up by DGG; but this meets GNG quite comfortably, in my book. Vanamonde ( talk) 07:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as it has significant coverage by multiple reliable sources, according to WP:CORPDEPTH. I would add though, that, listing a bunch of sources at the bottom of the article does not help making the article itself better. Those sources can be used, with care, in the article, thereby expanding it and making it more interesting. That work will also help the AFD process. -- 1l2l3k ( talk) 13:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per all keep comments, but this seriously needs more information. I'm not opposed to a second nomination in one to two months if this isn't "revamped" because it does seem somewhat like advertising at the moment. If the NYT article is mentioned, that'll certainly help with credibility. Redditaddict 6 9 14:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. So Why 19:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Batul Soltani

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

Claim made for being an Iranian politician, but all I could find was this source that describes her as a MOIS employee. Devotes herself to writing against political opposition group MEK, which seems to be a tactical effort to discredit political opposition groups. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 18:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 20:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Ben Gluck

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

Although Ben Gluck has co-directed animated films - There is nothing notable about him. There are no interviews/articles about him that I can find (only one's he's done about the film Alpha and Omega). The reason this article has no sources is because there are none. Wikipedia is a combination of knowledge that has been published; unfortunately this article has been written as first hand research and not based on published sources - Therefore there is no way to verify the information provided in this article. ツ Stacey ( talk) 18:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 20:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Digital Feudalism

Digital Feudalism (  | 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 concept created by a couple of people with no independent sourcing about it. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and WP:GNG is not met Joseph 2302 ( talk) 17:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete From what I can see, it doesn't appear that this meets WP:NEO. Per the guideline: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term." Most of the results that I see are links back to the original paper in which the authors coined the term (and the rest don't look like reliable sources), so the notability guideline is not met. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 18:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America 1000 00:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Armat

Armat (  | 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 and not enough coverage. Harut111 ( talk) 19:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Harut111 ( talk) 19:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Harut111 ( talk) 19:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 20:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 15:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 17:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 13:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Wass Stevens

Wass Stevens (  | 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 lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails WP:ENT. reddogsix ( talk) 23:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Consensus is that the coverage is not sufficient to establish notability. Hut 8.5 21:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Indygo Arscott

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

WP:BLP of an activist whose claims of notability are not properly referenced as getting them over WP:GNG. Of the eight footnotes here, three are primary sources that cannot support notability -- Facebook, Twitter and a piece in which they're the bylined author of content about themself -- while four of the other five are just glancing namechecks of their existence as a giver of soundbite in articles about other things, and the last tangentially verifies the existence of an event while completely failing to mention the subject's name at all in conjunction with it. This is not how you source an activist as notable enough for an encyclopedia article -- they have to be the subject of the sources, not the author of their own sources or a person whose name gets briefly mentioned in coverage about other subjects. Bearcat ( talk) 04:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: Although there are many primary sources, I do believe that the news articles written about the subject provide some notability as the events were fairly recent (one rally was hosted by the subject themselves) and there could be more news coverage in the near future as the subject's activism develops, especially after the Doug Ford rally held approximately two weeks ago. GeorgeMHall ( talk) 18:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
We keep or delete articles based on what's already true today, not based on WP:CRYSTAL predictions about how much more notable the person might become in the future. The sources which actually count as reliable source media coverage here aren't about Indygo Arscott, but merely mention their name in the process of being about something else, which is not how you source the notability of an activist. And it's also necessary to point out that you're the page's creator, and thus not an objective observer of whether the sourcing here is enough or not — it doesn't mean you're not allowed to comment at all, I assure you, but it does need to be stated on the record. Bearcat ( talk) 21:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 02:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 02:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 02:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma msg 16:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete all. Hut 8.5 21:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Azam Khan (cricketer, born 1998)

Azam Khan (cricketer, born 1998) (  | 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 per the reason stated, below:

Mohammad Arif (cricketer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mohammad Taha (cricketer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mushtaq Ahmed Kalhoro (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable cricketers. Have not played in a match that meets WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

And to be clear, if it is decided they are different players, then Delete Mustaq Ahmed Kalhoro too, as he fails NCRIC and does not have enough WP:RS / WP:SECONDARY coverage to pass WP:GNG. Spike 'em ( talk) 17:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Thanks Spike. I too spotted that Mushtaq Ahmed has a profile on CI (with FC matches), but I'm not able to verify if it's one and the same. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I've deleted some text / reference on the Mohammad Taha article, as it was for a different (Indian) player with the same name. Spike 'em ( talk) 17:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
No need to bring that up given this situation. This is a clear case of brightline notability standards. And once again I ask, how? Funny how people only finish that thought halfway through without being willing to suggest new universally applicable brightline requirements. "A whole season" is unenforceable. "A few" is woolly and pointless. Wanna suggest two, five, ten, one hundred? This isn't the place to be suggesting new brightline criteria. It's been 14 years. Give it a go. In the appropriate place(s). Bobo . 09:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - simply waste of time, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no evidence of subjects meeting WP:GNG, let alone the very generous subject-specific notability guideline. Hack ( talk) 15:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the first three certainly. Mushtaq Ahmed Kalhoro is also a likely delete for now - I can find just the article that's at the foot of the article for now and nothing else. There is an argument that this player is likely to be notable on the grounds that non-English language sources are very likely to exist along the same lines. On the grounds that there's just the one article I can find, that's not the multiple, independent, in depth sources required by WP:GNG so I think I tend towards delete for him as well - although I would be happy with the article being kept if someone can demonstrate the likelihood of non-English language sources. The same argument has certainly been used to keep articles in the past. The others I find nothing verifiable to demonstrate that they come close to meeting GNG. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 12:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. I also made efforts to find sources, and if it's this hard, I don't think they're worth it. Daask ( talk) 19:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( talk) 08:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

CardLife

CardLife (  | 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 video game. I'm not seeing significant coverage as of yet. Strikerforce Talk 16:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Yup, there is a distinct lack of coverage. -- Izno ( talk) 23:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • This was left on my talk page, verbatim. I submit it for others to review in this context. -- Izno ( talk) 14:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

    Hi Izno, I have added some new content to the CardLife page in relation to your feedback. The CardLife Page now features information about its creators Freejam Games. I've also added a new Reception category which shows that CardLife has had over 5 million views from prominent YouTube channels with a big following like PaulSoaresJnr (1.5 million subscribers), GrayStillPlays (663k subscribers) and others. I believe this will be enough for you to be satisfied that CardLife is notable enough to be featured on Wikipedia, but I obviously understand if you disagree. Thanks for taking a look and moderating the page. It is very early for CardLife in terms of press coverage, but on YouTube it's already a notable game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gribb85 ( talk • contribs) 14:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 17:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 17:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( talk) 08:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

DomainTools

DomainTools (  | 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 reliable sources found to verify notability Finnishela ( talk) 16:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I find User:Daask's arguments particularly unpersuasive. He says, I can't find an independent source describing their work at all, yet wants to keep the article. That is clearly in contradiction to WP:V and WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Longfin (company)

Longfin (company) (  | 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 corporation per WP:NCORP. Only event includes an incident of alleged securities fraud which does not qualify a standalone article for a corporation. Gotitbro ( talk) 15:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Although it is quoted on Nasdaq, I also cannot find any analyst reports discussing this company in depth. On that basis, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 17:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I see no indication that this company is notable for what it does. In fact, I can't find an independent source describing their work at all. However, there is ongoing coverage of this company for its stock value, criminal investigations, and as an exemplar of bitcoin investment bubbles. I expect it will be discussed in historical works on that last point, although that's WP:CRYSTALBALL. You can decide whether this rationale is compelling. Daask ( talk) 21:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep – Coverage of company makes it notable per User:Daask. Redditaddict 6 9 15:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Elon Musk#Tham Luang cave rescue. Vanamonde ( talk) 08:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Elon Musk's submarine

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

Uneeded for its own article, no use in the actual rescue as well as no recorded use. Device was deemed impractical by official as well. ⠀TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁS⠀ TALK⠀ 15:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

There's emerging consensus both at Elon Musk and Tham Luang cave rescue that the amount of detail provided by all the available reliable sources has too much WP:WEIGHT for either article. A WP:SPLIT makes more sense in these conditions. Diego ( talk) 21:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I was originally thinking merge, but I believe it has more than enough coverage to satisfy the main branch of notability. Then it has plenty of content to warrant a CONTENTFORK. Coverage also extended on long enough to satisfy WP:SUSTAINED - Vox and Hackaday just to give a couple (there's plenty if you do a time-focused search). The sub was a sufficiently big part of the event, regardless of actual lack of usage, to achieve notability. Nosebagbear ( talk) 17:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:GNG and WP:WHENSPLIT. I started the article mainly with content that had been removed from Tham Luang cave rescue for being too detailed for that article, and because there were too many sources covering the development of this technological implement with a level of detail that was notable and in-depth, but not directly related to the rescue. There have been many articles dedicated both to the technological aspects of the device and its viability as submarine rescue equipment, as well as about the incident with its promoter and its angle as a publicity stunt, which could be used to further expand the topic with details gathered from independent secondary analysis. (Also, since when "it's not in use" has been a criterion for determining whether a topic is notable?) Diego ( talk) 21:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The fact that the said submarine had no use and no foreseen need shows that the topic would not pass WP:SUSTAINED. "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability". ⠀TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁS⠀ TALK⠀ 23:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
While the length of time needed for sustained to apply is always one for dispute, I feel the coverage indicated (and available) is sufficient to show it was a brief news flurry. It doesn't have to be a long running coverage subject, just not brief. Nosebagbear ( talk) 23:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
When news media are dedicating feature-length analysis pieces one month after the incident, that is not a short burst. Diego ( talk) 05:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
That's an short opinion piece surrounding Musk's behavior, not necessarily the submarine. ⠀TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁS⠀ TALK⠀ 13:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
There are plenty more mentioning the submarine where this one came from during the last week, you just need to look; this shows that its coverage in media was not just a brief burst never to be mentioned again, but that it has gained their sustained attention. Anyway, Musk's behavior regarding the submarine is part of the topic of this article. Diego ( talk) 14:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
All of those articles barely mention the submarine. Also, in all of them, the submarine is not nearly the main focus. ⠀TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁS⠀ TALK⠀ 14:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Whatever. Notability is about having enough independent content to write an article for a topic in a neutral way, and I believe this article is proof that press coverage satisfies that criterion. Diego ( talk) 08:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now; editorially, it's a useful article-split and it's unclear whether it will be the subject of lasting coverage at this time. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 00:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as per Diego MoyaHypercube. It's fun to laugh at Musk, but that's not what Wikipedia is for, and the whole submarine incident seems more like one episode in the slow decline of a living figure rather than a notable object in and of itself. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 01:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 01:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 01:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 01:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Already overwhelms the Elon Musk article as a section. This insignificant event has zero WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. wumbolo ^^^ 08:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
    • This is from yesterday. Diego ( talk) 13:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
      • @ Diego Moya: one sentence plus one quote? wumbolo ^^^ 13:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
        • And it appears that the sentence boils down to, "after this, I have a lower opinion of Musk," which points back to my previous argument that this is best viewed as an episode in the decline of Elon Musk rather than an independent article. Simonm223 ( talk) 13:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
          • That's non-zero for you. And I count four paragraphs retelling the pod design, the "pedo" incident, and four sentences of opinions from Mr Acton (which is from one source, more than one month after the event; it doesn't mean there aren't others).
          Reading the WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE policy above, I see it matching "If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance" more closely than "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion". Diego ( talk) 14:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
          • OK, but there's also a WP:DUE issue at play here. The salacious nature of Musks's tweets shouldn't lead to us over-stating the significance of this event. The only significance of the submarine is that Elon Musk was the person who tried it. If it was some random nobody, it'd never have even made the news. Should we also have an article about Musk and Grimes' feud with Azealia Banks? Simonm223 ( talk) 14:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
            • WP:DUE is for placing content within an article dedicated to a different topic, no? Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, and having an article or not depends on the WP:Notability of the (sub)topic itself, not its relation to other topics. WP:SPLIT recommends having a stand-alone article if there's enough references providing material that is too much weight for the article from which it came from. So WP:DUE would be a good argument for not merging it back into Elon Musk, not to delete Elon Musk's submarine. Diego ( talk) 14:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
              • Yeah, but that still doesn't speak to any independent notability. How is this object relevant to anything except that it was a Musk PR stunt? I mean it wasn't asked for by anyone, didn't rescue anyone. It's a non-notable object except in that it led to Musk saying unfortunate and slanderous things on Twitter about a person who actually did rescue people. Its notability is only because of Musk. It belongs merged into his article, not as a separate article. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Elon Musk#Tham Luang cave rescue. The event is not independently notable of Musk and it does not satisfy WP:SUSTAINED. There is consensus at Talk:Tham_Luang_cave_rescue#Survey that the submarine was a minor event compared to the entire rescue; devoting an entire article to it would be undue. A similar example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saman Kunan, which was closed in favour of a merge. In this case, I suggest merging it to Elon Musk because the submarine and subsequent tweets attracted attention primarily because of Musk. This is a minor social media incident which got blown over and then coverage gradually decreases. Given our BLP policies which advise against devoting too much space to minor events, I think a couple of sentences in Elon Musk should be good enough to cover it.-- DreamLinker ( talk) 18:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
    The amount of BLP content is similar to that already placed at Elon Musk. The rest of the article is not related to BLP; they are technical descriptions about the device and its viability, which satisfy WP:Notability, as it received attention on its own. Those wouldn't fit at Musk's article, yet are due weight for an article about the submarine itself. Diego ( talk) 09:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
How are the proposed technical capabilities of a billionaire's failed PR stunt relevant independent of the billionaire? Simonm223 ( talk) 11:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
We don't need it to be independent, we need it to be "notable" on its own, i.e. written in detail by independent reliable sources. Then we can write a WP:SUMMARY section in Musk's page, and a more detailed stand-alone article. Why would we want to have only the first, and lose some part of the reliably sourced descriptive content that is already written, when there's room to have both? Diego ( talk) 11:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
But that's the crux. Notability is only there vis its position as a PR stunt of Elon Musk. It's all inherited. There's nothing to this story except a stupid twitter feud that a rich jerk decided to engage in and a length of tube. Simonm223 ( talk) 11:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Please answer this question: if a reader thought "I want to check Wikipedia to learn what happened with that Musk submarine, how it was made, and whether it could have really worked" (all of these, things that the media have cared about), where would you send them, and how much information they would get? I mean, without having to check the linked references to read the whole articles by themselves. Diego ( talk) 11:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
That question doesn't speak to WP:GNG which is what concerns us here. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Pardon me for being harsh, but are you saying that you're more concerned with following guidelines than providing information to readers? My read of the GNG is that, if there's enough information to write a detailed and neutral short article, you have passed it, because GNG basically asks "is there enough content to write a short, detailed, neutral article?" Diego ( talk) 12:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
It's undue coverage of an irrelevant PR stunt with no independent notability from the person who proposed it. Answer this question, if Julie Payette had proposed making a submarine in these circumstances, would anybody care? And yet, she's if anything far more qualified for this sort of work than everybody's favourite battery hype man. The only relevance of this object is the person who proposed it. It's not independently notable. It doesn't have significant sustained coverage and a year from now, Elon Musk will be the only person who cares about it. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I don't know, would have all the press covered it in depth for a week and still mention it one month later as an example every time they talk about her erratic behavior? Because that has totally happened with Musk. Also, you really should explain how the WP:DUE policy and WP:NOTINHERITED essay apply to having a stand-alone article, because I don't see anything in them about a topic that has GNG-level sourcing to it. DUE in particular seems to warn against the merge to the Musk article that you propose. Diego ( talk) 12:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Naw, I've said my piece, and barring any new information I am not changing my !vote which I believe to be justified by policy. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
As you wish, but I think you seem to confound "it's covered with undue weight within another subject" and "it's not important". Those are different things, and only the first is policy. Diego ( talk) 12:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge back into the main article, per arguments by Diego Moya et al. I can't add much more. It's undue weight right now, and of minor importance, yet would add context and citations to the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian ( talk • contribs)
  • Merge - Not sure why this needs a seperate article, No notability to warrant a seperate article. – Davey2010 Talk 21:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep First off, I can imagine this article being discussed for several reasons, namely 1) the behavior of wealthy benefactors like Musk, 2) time-constrained prototyping and manufacturing, 3) rescue attempts. Multiple reasons of interest makes a separate article more viable in my opinion, apart from any guidelines. Daask ( talk) 21:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Having an entire article on this topic seems very much like Wikipedia:Recentism. If there's still significant news coverage a year from now, I'll certainly reconsider! Λυδ α cιτγ 03:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply
That seems like an absurdly high bar to cover - 1 month is usually viewed as more than sufficient in these AfDs as regards LASTING and RECENTISM. If that bar was required to be met on top of any other notability requirements, almost no events, criminals, olympic athletes etc would warrant coverage. Nosebagbear ( talk) 07:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Wheeling Jesuit University. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Appalachian Institute

Appalachian Institute (  | 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, promo largely based on social media and the own website. Most other hits I found were of the type "we have an event" or "mrs/mr X is working here". Part of Wheeling Jesuit University with no independent notability. The Banner  talk 15:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of chess variants. This seems to be the clear consensus. (non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 02:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Troy (chess variant)

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

Mentioned in a specialist encylopedia for chess variants, but no other sources it seems. Does not pass the WP:GNG for inclusion in Wikipedia (a general encylopedia). It's not viable for every one of the thousands of entries in The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants to be given an independent article. Note that The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants and The Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants are effectively editions 1 and 2 of the same publication. It can be found online at [1]. Troy is on page 206. Suggest redirection to List of chess variants rather than actual deletion. LukeSurl t c 15:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 20:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Korean drama television series in Pakistan

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Since television shows from any country can be broadcast in any other country, this is not a thing it's valuable or useful for an encyclopedia to maintain a list of — there are approximately 180 countries in the world whose television channels both produce their own television series and purchase rebroadcast rights to television series from other countries, giving us the duty to create and maintain around 32,000 such lists, for every possible combination of originating and purchasing country, if this were a thing we did. This is not useful or encyclopedic content, and Korean series airing in Pakistan don't occupy some unique sphere of special notability unmatched by any other combination of countries. Bearcat ( talk) 14:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Gran Hermano (Spain) All Stars 2. (non-admin closure) Daask ( talk) 21:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

La Revuelta (season 1)

AfDs for this article:
La Revuelta (season 1) (  | 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 fails to meet WP:GNG. I tried searching and couldn't find a mention of it in the first few pages of a google search. I tried searching "La Revuelta" in es.wiki, with no mention of it there either. This article could arguably be deleted based on WP:A3 and WP:V, as the 2 sentence lead has 3 pieces of information which none can be verified if correct. The rest of the article is blanked sections (including an empty pseudo-infobox). Also please note, that the only External link there, is for the Gran Hermano site, which does not have an entry for this, which seems more of a copy/paste from other articles than an actual validated source. Also note that the article has been like this since it was created in 2012 with 1 edit by SecretStoryStyle and has never been edited by anyone else, except for general wiki maintenance - tagging and link and category fixes. Gonnym ( talk) 14:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Mrschimpf:To be honest, I have no idea. This article has almost no information that I can use to verify. At best I can say that it has the same host and a somewhat similar name. If I had to guess, I'd say it probably is. -- Gonnym ( talk) 18:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 21:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 20:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Theam

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

second nom, still doesn't meet notability and has seen no improvement since the first nom Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 13:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 16:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 16:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. So Why 19:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Joshua Levy

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

WP:BLP of a writer, who doesn't have a strong claim of notability under WP:AUTHOR or particularly strong reliable source coverage to carry a WP:GNG pass. He's the bylined creator, not the subject, of 10 of the 12 footnotes, and one more is his "our contributors" note in the general episode preview of one of the first ten — but, as always, writers do not get over our notability standards by being the creators of coverage about other things, they get over our notability standards by being the subject of coverage written by other people. Which means the only source here that isn't a complete non-starter in terms of establishing his notability is #4, "Montreal is in my DNA" — but that piece of coverage is from the same media outlet that hired him for the closest thing to an actual notability claim here, which means it isn't independent of him for the purposes of helping him get over GNG. All of which means that nothing here is enough to deem him notable. Bearcat ( talk) 17:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep while I did not approve this page through AfC I did comment "My gut says he is notable. He is certainly prolific and funded by the CBC is impressive. Anything that can be added where other people talk about him and his work would be very helpful to establish notability" This is just a new stub and can be expanded. There are many pages in AfC that are far more worthy of deletion then this page. Legacypac ( talk) 17:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Notability is not demonstrated by how prolific a person is, it's demonstrated by how much attention he does or doesn't receive as the subject of coverage, and an individual CBC station in a media market is not the same thing as the national network. Bearcat ( talk) 20:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 13:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral While I believed the CBC Montreal / Quebec Writers' Federation writer in residence and the CBC longlist qualified under NAUTHOR's inherent notability for multiple prizes, in reading the above discussion, and E.M.Gregory's comments, I am no longer convinced and am refactoring my !vote from Weak Keep to Neutral. Chetsford ( talk) 03:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Note that the article is entirely PRIMARY sourced. Mostly sourced to short stories by Levy. There are also 2 segments wher ethe CBC "takes a listen to home recordings" and a Levy family recording is includes, plus "'Montreal is in my DNA': Meet Joshua Levy," introducing him as this year's writer-in-residence. We need SECONDARY. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I believe Chetsford felt badgered into changing their vote. The subject accomplished a notable award (writer in residence at the CBC, Canada's national TV/radio network), has had their works reviewed, and certainly meets WP:GNG at the very least. Ifnord ( talk) 16:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Although the CBC is a national network, Levy was not selected by the CBC Nationa,. He was selected by CBC Quebec. The 2017 CBC/QWF's 2017 writer-in-residence was Sarah Lolley [10]. As for reviews, I have found no reviews of his work. Published reviews are precisely the sort of thing that does help pass WP:AUTHOR. User:Ifnord, if you have found reviews, please bring to them to the page. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion at this time. North America 1000 06:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

2020 Formula One World Championship

AfDs for this article:
2020 Formula One World Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOSOON. No news specifically related to 2020 has been released yet. T v x1 13:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

None of which constitutes content currently included or that can be included in the contested article. The Miami Grand Prix is a proposed race. 2020 is the earliest possible year it could be held. There is no contract for it (yet), so it simply cannot be included in the article. And what happens beyond 2020 is logically of none relevance to a 2020 season article. Thus nothing of which of you mentioned justifies keeping this article. Moreover there was some prior discussion at WT:F1 which also had the sentiment that it should not be created yet. T v x1 18:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Yoyowhatsup2 ( talk) 03:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Naugadh

Naugadh (  | 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 couldn't find many references on the subject. Maybe merge it Singrauli district. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 13:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 13:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 13:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Police detachment

Police detachment (  | 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 term isn't notable. There are many terms for police subdivisions, but they aren't all notable. Virtually a DICDEF.  —  Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs)  02:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 04:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —  Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs)  03:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui  雲 水 13:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No sources = no article. Sandstein 17:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Fantasy Imperium

Fantasy Imperium (  | 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 has just passed the 13 year mark without a single source. A search on Google News, JSTOR, and newspapers.com fails to find any RS. WP:FANCRUFT applies. Chetsford ( talk) 12:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford ( talk) 12:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 18:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 18:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 18:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 18:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply


Improper nom by clueless editor The nom apparently believes that tabletop roleplaying rules are "designed to be used for the play of a game exactly like Monopoly or Stratego" [15]. Nobody who does not understand the text of a Wikipedia article in its plain meaning can legitimately nominate that article for deletion.

Nom doesn't even understand the FANCRUFT essay. That's pretty clueless. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Newimpartial - the nom's argument may or may not be correct, but you clearly have an epic inability to understand and utilise WP:CIVIL.
In relation to the AfD, I actually find myself more struggling to understand your case (which I assume is a "Keep" !vote) - where does the nom mention anything along those lines at all. It seems a clear notability case being made, rather than a content dispute. In any case, I was unable to find any suitable coverage (generally non-reliable user RPG reviews) in my own WP:BEFORE sweep and thus it warrants deletion. Nosebagbear ( talk) 18:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
If I need to be more explicit, I will. The nominator has provided no valid grounds for deletion. FANCRUFT, even if the article were such (which it isn't), is not policy-based grounds for deletion whatsoever. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Need being the operative word - if you jump in at rude you miss the opportunity to see whether a civil answer would work. Nosebagbear ( talk) 20:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
You are, of course, correct. I was overcome by Chetsford's belligerently-repeated falsehoods, but I should know to act better. Sigh. (I meet all diagnostic criteria for being easily trolled, but the ADA doesn't recognize those as grounds for accommodation. :p) Newimpartial ( talk) 21:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Query - I'd been considering a redirect, and the target noted by BOZ would be a good one (I don't think merge, since there isn't much space for additional content to go in). However that article specifically says it is for notable pages, and by dint of us redirecting OR merging, we'd render it unsuited for the list. However the further down the list you go, the less obedient to its own instructions the list gets. Thoughts? Nosebagbear ( talk) 19:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
That's a great question, Nosebagbear. I'm tentatively open to Redirect as well, however, had the same issue you identified. For now I've decided to stay with Delete on the basis of WP:OTHERSTUFF; i.e. because there is policy non-compliant content in one area of WP that doesn't establish a precedent for continuing to introduce it. But I think you're right in that it could go either way. Chetsford ( talk) 19:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. AFD also withdrawn by norminator [16]. (non-admin closure) Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 19:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Man, Myth & Magic (role-playing game)

Man, Myth & Magic (role-playing game) (  | 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 on a toy or game product that has had no sources attached to it for the preceding 15 years. A BEFORE check on Google News and JSTOR fails to find any references. Fails GNG. Chetsford ( talk) 11:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford ( talk) 11:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

*Strong Keep This game received extensive print reviews from reliable publications at the time of its release; it sails way beyond GNG requirements. A completely inappropriate nomination. Newimpartial ( talk) 11:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

No problem. If you could provide the outlet names, dates, authors, and article titles for the "extensive print reviews" I can add them into the article and then withdraw the nom. However, we usually can't keep an article based only on an individual editor's vague memory of once seeing a source 40 years ago. Chetsford ( talk) 11:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The Dragon review was in Issue 80; the Space Gamer review was in Issue 60, and both were entirely independent of the subject. Someone who is not working today can look up the additional details required for citations, but the GNG is already met at this point (though there are many, many more references). Newimpartial ( talk) 12:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
"The Dragon" and "The Space Gamer" are not RS, I'm afraid and product reviews of a game in a game fan-zine would be WP:ROUTINE and WP:FANCRUFT even if they were, ergo it fails the GNG if that's all that exists. If you can maybe point out some of the coverage it received in places like the New York Times, CBS News, peer-reviewed journals, books from mainstream publishing houses, etc., that might be helpful, though. Otherwise, this probably needs to go to a Wikia site or some more appropriate place than Wikipedia. Chetsford ( talk) 12:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I strongly advise you to drop this line of argument, Chetsford. In the 1980s, these two publications were professionally-edited magazines, not fanzines, and you really ought not to throw those labels around without knowing what you are talking about. It is not necessary for a game to be reviewed in the New York Times or academic presses in order to be notable, any more than an art exhibition needs to be discussed in the New York Times or academic presses. Professionally-edited specialty publications are quite sufficient.
In another matter, could you please stop AfD-bombing inappropriate articles, and maybe even have a look at the history of deletion discussions in this area, before we have to go to ANI about it? Newimpartial ( talk) 13:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I strongly advise you to drop this line of argument, Chetsford. I appreciate your advice but have decided against following it at this time. Thank you for offering it, however! Professionally-edited specialty publications are quite sufficient. Actually, two routine product reviews will usually be quite insufficient to meet the WP:SIGCOV criteria for any commercial product be it a game, toaster, or athletic shoe. Chetsford ( talk) 13:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I don't know how you formed that particular opinion, Chetsford, but WP:NBOOK specifies that two published reviews are sufficient, and they need not come from news organizations. All of the products you have recently sent to AfD are published books, so NBOOK applies in this case. Hence, GNG is met, as I noted before. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
This is not a book as envisioned by NBOOK, it is a "a fantasy role-playing game" that consists of a variety of products assembled in a box or sold as supplements including dice, notepads, artwork in the form of fictional maps, instruction books, etc. Monopoly has an instruction book but we don't evaluate it by NBOOK. So does my Orajel toothbrush. The mere presence of bound and printed paper as one of a series of items included in a packaged product is not in the logical spirit of NBOOK. With only two (rumored) sources, both in questionably RS fan-zines, the article fails GNG. Chetsford ( talk) 13:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Chersford, your obstreperousness makes it difficult for me to remain polite. A magazine with a professional editorial staff is not a "fanzine". A book in a box - and this is the only one of your RPG nominations to date that shipped in a box - is still a book. The book is the game. To argue that NBOOK doesn't apply to Man, Myth and Magic because it shipped with dice and a poster is akin to arguing that NBOOK doesn't apply to Ursula K. LeGuin's Always Coming Home because the deluxe first edition shipped with an audio cassette of filk music for the book. The Unknown Armies RPG doesn't lose its book status if it ships in a slipcover that transforms into a GM screen. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
"your obstreperousness makes it difficult for me to remain polite" I've never had difficulty remaining polite in an AFD so, while I can't empathize with you, I do sympathize and am sorry you're having difficulty. "A book in a box" In any case, this product is shipped with a game board (what it refers to as "maps"), notepads, dice, and an instruction/rules booklet, and is designed to be used for the play of a game exactly like Monopoly or Stratego. It is not a book in the spirit of NBOOK regardless of how it is branded or marketed by the manufacturer. The very fact that this article is so bereft of sources that no other argument is left than trying to re-imagine this game system as a book so as to invoke inherent notability on the basis of two fanzine reviews probably makes the argument for deletion better than I could. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one! Chetsford ( talk) 13:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
No editor who believes that role-play game rules are "designed to be used for the play of a game exactly like Monopoly or Stratego" should be allowed to nominate RPGs for deletion. But full marks for trolling! Newimpartial ( talk) 15:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
"But full marks for trolling!" Is this absolutely necessary? You previously indicated you would refrain from using AFD discussions for personal attacks against editors with whose !vote you disagreed. [17] AFD is a discussion in which we share and discuss our opinions and examine the differences between them. It's not a space for us to belittle each other's motivations. If you find the subject of roleplaying games is so emotional for you that you can't contribute without calling other editors names perhaps there are other areas of WP you could consider contributing to for a bit? Chetsford ( talk) 15:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Are you unaware that repeating untrue statements on which you have been previous corrected is actually a form of trolling? Well now you are aware. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Keep. The nom indicates that ""The Dragon" and "The Space Gamer" are not RS," but it has been established by multiple, lengthy precedents here that they are, in fact, RS. Since neither is also the publisher of "Man, Myth, and Magic" they are also independent. In fact many early reviewers were independent writers/reviewers giving them the status of Peer Reviewers much like any journal. The nominator here can't just make up notability guidelines to cover for his lack of knowledge in this topic domain. Web Warlock ( talk) 16:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
While I disagree that one can equivocate "The Space Gamer" to indexed journals from academic publishers such as Journal of the American Medical Association or International Security, I respect your obvious passion for this topic. Chetsford ( talk) 00:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Can't bear to thank by name the person who first volunteered the Dragon and Space Gamer reviews, eh? Including the issue numbers? Figures. :P Newimpartial ( talk) 19:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America 1000 06:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Skyler Stonestreet

Skyler Stonestreet (  | 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 electronic music singer, seems to only be covered by Rolling Stone source which doesn't suffice. Other than that, the page is mostly unreferenced. aNode (discuss) 07:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Indeed it works, but two or three sources aren't really enough to establish notability. Even if more sources are found, a complete rewrite and expansion will be needed, probably in a draft. aNode (discuss) 14:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 20:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. So Why 18:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Kolawole Sunday

Kolawole Sunday (  | 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 page was earlier AfD under different name with title 'Kolawole Omoboriowo' . See log here : /info/en/?search=Special:Log/delete?type=delete&user=&page=Kolawole_Omoboriowo&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype= . No changes done other than putting a new name to the same BLP Devopam ( talk) 11:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 12:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost ( talk) 04:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 09:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 21:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Miles Bakshi

Miles Bakshi (  | 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 individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix ( talk) 13:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 18:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Scottish School of Wrestling

Scottish School of Wrestling (  | 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 real content on the article other than tables of history. Official website is gone. Can't find many reliable sources of information that establish notability. — Moe Epsilon 17:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 18:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 18:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Is this a vote for delete? -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 18:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
What else could "non-notable as a school, or promotion" also mean? — Moe Epsilon 20:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Just wanted to make it clear that it's not a comment. -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 20:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 18:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. So Why 19:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Hefty Records

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

Listing after declined PROD. Not enough sources to establish notability, no major releases (as far as I can tell). Ytoyoda ( talk) 19:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - meets GNG. Not an overwhelming number of notable artists, but coverage indicates this label has had a noticeable cultural impact. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 14:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The NYT article does not support GNG here because Hefty is not the subject and is just mentioned in passing. The XLR8R source in not a clearcut WP:RS.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC) reply
    The label gets reasonably substantial mention in the Hughes NYT profile (he is the label's founder and a release of his on the label is discussed), and XLR8R was a major print music publication for almost 20 years. Also, this does not exhaust available sourcing (e.g., [23], [24]). Chubbles ( talk) 12:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Chubbles. Satisfies GNG. James500 ( talk) 21:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The requirements for references that meet the criteria for establishing notability is a lot different than the criteria for supporting facts within an article. So, while this NYT reference can be used in a latter capacity, it fails the former because it is not "intellectually independent" and fails WP:ORGIND. Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is also the same reason that the xlr8r reference and the chicagoist reference also fail the criteria for establishing notability. Also, notability is [[WP:NOTINHERIT|not inherited]. Without references, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 21:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC) reply
    • ORGIND is not part of GNG. The lead section of WP:N makes it very clear that if a topic satisfies GNG it does not have to satisfy any SNG including ORG. WT:ORG has a much lower level of participation than WT:N, which is why some parts of ORG represent a minority viewpoint. James500 ( talk) 02:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
      • Hi James500, all of what you said is untrue. Nowhere in GNG does it state that if a topic satisfies GNG it doesn't have to satisfy any SNG. Nowhere does it say anywhere that ORG represents a "minority viewpoint". WP:N provides generic guidelines that can be applied to all articles but certain categories provide additional clarification and also represents consensus. There are no "levels" applied to guidelines. Both GNG and ORGIND have the same "level" or standing since both are parts of guidelines (not policies) and are accepted by general consensus. The purpose of guidelines is to provide clarifications on policy. GNG and ORGIND actually provide clarification on pretty much the exact same things but NCORP provides extra clarification in relation to companies/organisations. So, for example, both mention that sources must be "independent". GNG states "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent" NCORP clarifies even further point out that articles that "repackage" these works (relying extensively or merely repeating) without adding sifnificant original/independent analysis/opinion are also not independent and helpfully labels this as "intellectual independence". Hence why both the references you've provided fail as not being "independent" of the topic. Whether you look at GNG or ORGIND, same thing, but a better clarification is found in ORGIND. HighKing ++ 10:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Sources have been added to the article; the in-depth interviews given here are usually accompanied by summary information and analysis. This is, to be honest, quite a fair bit of attention from the press for a record label. Chubbles ( talk) 13:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Response Hi Chubbles, you've added two additional references but neither meets the requirements for establishing notability. This one from the Chicago Tribune is an interview with the founder and since it is not intellectually independent, it fails WP:ORGIND since it does not contain any original/independent opinion/analysis that is not attributable to Hughes. It also fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it contains no information about the company. The other reference from StopSmiling is labelled clearly as an "oral history" from Hughes and fails for the same reasons. ORGIND defines "intellectual independence" and it goes on to state: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing ++ 17:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
      • That guideline is intended to prevent the use of press releases and wholesale regurgitations of press releases as sources. An interview with a journalist at the Chicago Tribune is inherently going through an editorial process. It does not make sense to apply that guideline here, nor to interviews conducted by reliable sources generally. Chubbles ( talk) 18:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
        • Two points on that. The first is that an interview with a founder, repeated verbatim, has always been regarded as a PRIMARY source and was never acceptable as a reference to establish notability of an organization. Second, the guideline is intended to disqualify information that explicitly originates from the company itself. Before it was updated this year, is stated other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people. After the update, it clarified that references must be "intellectually independent" and requires "original and independent opinion" that is "clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". I don't see how your interpretation of the guidelines is correct but hopefully others will chime in. HighKing ++ 11:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
          • I don't see how that guideline would be wise, especially as applied to arts and entertainment, where interviewing is crucial to journalism on the topic. If you are a music journalist and you want to write about a label that's putting out what you think of as important and noteworthy music, where do you go to get information about it? Of course, you go to its founder and to its roster. The jazz encyclopedias I use all the time are obviously sourced from interview and oral history material - sometimes even the artists' website bios. In all of these cases, independent editorial judgment has been exercised to assess that 1.) This is an important enough artistic entity to include and promulgate in the magazine/newspaper/encyclopedia, and 2.) The reporting institution does not have good reason to believe the information gleaned from the artist or label runner is suspect (and so, as a reasonable but rebuttable presumption, neither do we). As a source, interview material often should be couched in Wikipedia articles as "X said this about himself" rather than "X did this", but that is a separate issue from the fact that the music the label releases was artistically noteworthy enough for the reporting institution to interview the label head in the first place. Chubbles ( talk) 13:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
            • There's a difference between what sources can be used to establish notability and what sources can be used to establish facts within an article. Your examples above are (probably) just fine for the latter but there's different standards for the former. To establish notability, the reference must be intellectually independent. I've pasted what that means already above. If a topic is truly notable, it should be possible to find two references. Also, because the references you've produced involve interviews with the founder - and the founder appears to be much more notable than this company - it appears to me that the interviews are not *about* the company which also indicates that the company isn't notable in its own right. HighKing ++ 15:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
              • My contention is that interviews conducted by major newspapers/magazines/websites/etc. with editorial boards are intellectually independent for the reasons I have stated, and so establish notability nonetheless. As for the latter point, if the articles just discussed Hughes's status as a scion or his live performances, you might have a better case there, but the sources all relate to Hefty and its releases specifically in some substantial way. Chubbles ( talk) 15:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep - Since this debate started, the separate article on the label's founder has been merged into this label article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Hughes III). I contend that the above discussion on whether an interview with the founder constitutes coverage of the label is a bit of a red herring. The label got noticed because its founder has a famous relative, and that founder has done little else beyond running the label. Therefore the two topics pretty much go hand-in-hand, and even more-so now that the founder's article has been merged into this one. This label probably would not be independently notable per Wikipedia:NCOMPANY if the founder wasn't semi-famous, but it got a few pieces of reliable coverage anyway. It's not much but enough for a basic stub article. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 18:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Comment But .. but .. but ... hang on Doomsdayer520, stating This label probably would not be independently notable per Wikipedia:NCOMPANY if the founder wasn't semi-famous is an admission that the company is not notable in its own right and since notability is not inherited, the semi-famous founder's purported notability doesn't enter into consideration. And getting a few pieces of reliable coverage also isn't the full criteria for establishing notability since the "coverage" must also meet the criteria in SIGCOV *and* ORGIND *and* CORPDEPTH. Can you take another look and perhaps revisit your !vote based on the above? HighKing ++ 12:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Actually I would advise you to stop repeating the exact same argument to every vote that is different than your own. My point has been made once, your point has been made at least thrice and counting. Let the consensus process play out. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 17:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The AfD process is about discussion, not blindly registering !votes - that's how consensus is formed. Also, this is the first time ever I've pointed out to an editor that their reasoning essentially admits the company isn't notable but then wants to ignore NOTINHERIT because, you know, perhaps that isn't what you meant and everybody deserves to get a chance to put their point across without fear of misinterpretation. HighKing ++ 12:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I did not ignore the "not inherited" rule; I just don't think it applies as indicated in my vote, though I did not mention it specifically. Take a look at WP:BLUDGEON for some community thoughts on how consensus is built. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 16:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is not a notable game. The mentioned possible merge target explicitly is only for notable games. If someone needs the text for another article, I'd be happy to restore and userfy. So Why 19:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Zen and the Art of Mayhem

Zen and the Art of Mayhem (  | 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 on a game is sourced entirely to an email posted to a Usenet group and a single review on "rpg.net." A search of JSTOR, newspapers.com, and Google News fails to find any reference to "Zen and the Art of Mayhem". Fails GNG. Chetsford ( talk) 10:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford ( talk) 10:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

*Improper nom by clueless editor The nom apparently believes that tabletop roleplaying rules are "designed to be used for the play of a game exactly like Monopoly or Stratego" [25]. Nobody who does not understand the text of a Wikipedia article in its plain meaning can legitimately nominate that article for deletion. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

That's too bad. Just a few months shy of the anniversary of being named a "precious editor" by Gerda Arendt, I've now been downgraded to a "clueless editor". I guess I flew too close to the heavens. Chetsford ( talk) 22:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
She was also fond of User:Jack Merridew, for what it's worth. BOZ ( talk) 23:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I don't think it matters for this discussion but correcting: I didn't have the pleasure to meet him, joining in 2009. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Chetsford ( talk) 16:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chetsford ( talk) 16:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No reliable sources presented, which seems to negate the lone "keep" argument. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Double Cross (role-playing game)

Double Cross (role-playing game) (  | 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 on a game cites no sources of any kind. A search on JSTOR, newspapers.com, and Google News fails to find any reference to "Double Cross" within the context of a game. Chetsford ( talk) 10:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford ( talk) 10:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Improper nom by clueless editorThe nom apparently believes that tabletop roleplaying rules are "designed to be used for the play of a game exactly like Monopoly or Stratego" [26]. Nobody who does not understand the text of a Wikipedia article in its plain meaning can legitimately noninate that article for deletion. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Chetsford ( talk) 16:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chetsford ( talk) 16:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The RSN discussion notwithstanding, consensus here is that the sources are sufficiently reliable to establish the subject's notability. So Why 19:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Angus Abranson

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

Part of the Cubicle 7 WP:WALLEDGARDEN. Article has zero WP:RS. (Note that the book "Designers & Dragons" is of questionable RS: it is supposedly an historical text but is (a) published by a novelty t-shirt and card game company [27], (b) the author has no credentials as an historian.) A BEFORE search on Google News, newspapers.com, Google Books, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and JSTOR returns zero ("0") results for the name "Angus Abranson" in RS. Chetsford ( talk) 08:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial ( talk) 09:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial ( talk) 09:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chetsford ( talk) 16:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Chetsford ( talk) 17:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Note the rationale for deletion is full of errors. The nom does not appear to understand that the publishers of Designers & Dragons are actual publishers exercising editorial oversight; he also does not recognize the established role of non-academic professionals in various fields, including this one, in writing RS monographs about their fields of expertise. He also, hilariously, has no idea what a tabletop roleplaying game is, in spite of nominating ten of them for deletion. I propose that his first game be the relaunched OSR Tunnels & Trolls. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I understand the novelty t-shirt and card game company "Evil Hat" [28] is exercising editorial oversight over its book Designers & Dragons. My position is that a BLP source to a single (i.e. 1) RS - particularly when that RS is an historical text published by a novelty t-shirt company - does not meet the significant coverage requirements of GNG. Chetsford ( talk) 17:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
"Novelty t-shirt company"? The Nom clearly has no idea what these book and games are, nor has the background knowledge on the publishers in thies field and what criterea have been used for the past 10 years here to estblish notability. The nom is clearly out of his depth and this needs to be taken into consideration when evaluating any of their claims. Web Warlock ( talk) 20:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
If Lady Gaga sells T-shirts she doesn't stop being an artist, man. (And Beating the Story doesn't stop being a book of literary criticism because it's published by a game company.) You really don't understand what Evil Hat does. But 10/10 for trolling! Newimpartial ( talk) 17:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Since Designers & Dragons was at question in this AFD, I believe everyone in this thread has been notified or participated in the RSN discussion on the book except for User:Webwarlock. BOZ ( talk) 21:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Being a Gen Con Industry Insider Guest for 2013 should be plenty to establish notability. Web Warlock ( talk) 20:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Just for descriptive purposes for other editors !voting here, your link above is to "ennie-awards.com". Chetsford ( talk) 02:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The ENnies are the Premier award for the RPG industry, akin to the People's Choice Awards. The fact that you don't know this is reason enough for you not to be tagging articles for Deletion in this area. Web Warlock ( talk) 02:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
All I said was for descriptive purposes for other editors !voting here, your link above is to "ennie-awards.com". It's purely a convenience note for editors who don't want to click on the link. That aside, I don't think one could really equivocate the "ENnie Awards" to the People's Choice Awards. A better equivalent would be a trade group trophy of similar acclaim, like the Commercial Real Estate Awards of Excellence or the Master Plumber Association Awards. Comparing the "ENnie Awards", which are InkJet certificates passed out on the floor of a trade show at a rental hall in Indianapolis and are covered in outlets like "The Dragon" and "rpg.net", to a 40 year-old awards show with a live audience of 7,000 that's nationally broadcast on network TV to millions of people and is covered by hundreds of major daily newspapers, is probably not an entirely realistic comparison, right? Chetsford ( talk) 02:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
True, but it is the premier award in the field. And the "trade show" is 60,000 people, which is I think, fairly large as trade shows go. So no, it's not the people's choice awards, but it is fair to say they are "akin" in that it is the same idea (voted awards). Probably the Nebula awards would be similar in many ways (smaller trade show, more prestige, bigger market, nicer awards) Hobit ( talk) 04:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Plus it has already been established through multiple precedents at Wikipedia that an ENnie AWard winning person, company or game is a good indication of notability. Your condescending tone above does nothing but expose your own ignorance of these topics. Web Warlock ( talk) 11:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Fair enough. I think 60K is on the modest, albeit very respectable, size. The Miami Boat Show has more than 100,000 people attend [30], and Concrete World Expo and the Home and Housewares Show both also have 60K+ [31] and I would certainly be surprised if we passed a BLP through on the basis of the individual once speaking at Concrete World Expo. The two times I was at Gencon it seemed like a respectable show and certainly a mid/mid-major event for central Indiana. I would probably not place the "ENnie Awards" on the same level of the Nebula Awards - the recipients of which regularly produce New York Times bestselling books. All that said, however, I think the more modest description of premier award in the field versus the previously offered description of it being like the People's Choice Awards is reasonable and I appreciate you providing this clarification and edification. Thank you! Chetsford ( talk) 17:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
So, Chets, is this Gencon claim a tacit admission that your repeated "puzzle game" and "stratego" opportunities were deliberate trolling all along? The opportunity for vigorous trolling has not yet been added to the Deletion criteria, you civil contributor, you. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Claims that there are no RS are simply not credible. Attacking "Designers & Dragons" based on it being published by a "novelty T-shirt company" is at best a misrepresentation aimed at garnering sympathy from less discerning editors (Evil Hat may sell T-shirts, but they are primarily a book publisher). This line of reasoning strikes me as being dangerously close to coatracking WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Sangrolu ( talk) 13:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The nominator's lack of knowledge of the subject and borderline subscription to the IDONTLIKEIT school of AfDing is made clear by their unawareness of the reliability of Designers and Dragons, obsession with characterising its publishers as a "novelty t-shirt company", and comment about Abranson not appearing in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which as anyone who could be bothered to do their homework would be aware, only includes dead people, and non-inclusion in which even of dead people does not mean they are not notable in any case given how selective it is! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete w/ caveat Fails GNG, ANYBIO. The acceptability of Designers & Dragons seems to be, per the discussion at RSN seems to be questionable at best. Many of the other Keep arguments seem to me to be against the nominator/nomination rather than addressing how this person may or may not pass notability.
    Of the sources in the article: Chronicle City appoints “Grim” James Desborough is essentially an interview and does not count towards notability; The GenCon "Alumni list" is of no use for notability; Dare you face the Dragon's Den? is not RS; The NewsCentral link [32] is dead; The Angus Abranson interview: A look inside Chronicle City is, again, an interview; and winning an ENnie is insufficient for ANYBIO#1. I have not had time to do a good BEFORE but as the article stands it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I will spend some time searching for sources but, for now, I will presume if there were any easily findable material it would have been presented. Jbh Talk 14:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I would note to the closer that, while the discussion at the RSN is not yet closed, there is strong support there for Designers & Dragons as a RS including for biographical articles. In addition, as I have pointed out elsewhere, geeknative meets the requirements for reliable self-published source, as the author "is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications" ( WP:RS/SPS). Also, per WP:CREATIVE, the subject's guest of honor roles demonstrste that "The person is regarded as an important figure ... by peers or successors."(#1) Newimpartial ( talk) 14:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
"The acceptability of Designers & Dragons seems to be, per the discussion at RSN seems to be questionable at best." No, that's not what it seems to be saying at all thus far. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Hmm... after your comment at RSN, just going by the table, there are 7 Yes, 7 No and 1 Maybe. I suppose there is some arguable semantic difference between Maybe and questionable but applying it to my statement above would be more of an exercise in pedantry than elucidation. Jbh Talk 15:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
While this is a BLP, and Jbhunley has correctly tallied the current !votes for BLPs in the RSN query, the initial comment that "the acceptability of Designers & Dragons seems to be questionable at best" does not specify the context of BLPs, and is therefore inadvertently misleading. The overall !votes for "game and game company" sourcing from Designers & Dragons is nine yes and four no, with two maybe. That survey would not be accurately read as "questionable at best" under any circumstances. Of course what actually matters is the policy-based arguments, but the interpretation of those is unlikely to be resolved soon. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
See above: "more of an exercise in pedantry than elucidation." Jbh Talk 16:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Cubicle 7. Obviously if the AFD nomination for the merge target closes as "delete" then this page/redirect should also be deleted, but in the meantime there is a consensus that Cthulhu Britannica is worth mentioning but not having its own article. Primefac ( talk) 17:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Cthulhu Britannica

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

Yet another product page in the Cubicle 7 WP:WALLEDGARDEN. Tightly paraphrased puzzle book is unreferenced except to a single RS. A search of newspapers.com, Google News, and JSTOR fails to find any additional RS coverage. Chetsford ( talk) 08:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 10:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 10:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 10:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Improper nom by clueless editor - The nom apparently believes that tabletop roleplaying rules are "designed to be used for the play of a game exactly like Monopoly or Stratego" [33]. Nobody who does not understand the text of a Wikipedia article in its plain meaning can legitimately nominate that article for deletion. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Hi Newimpartial - I see you're mass copy/pasting a declaration that I'm "clueless" across several recent AfD discussions [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], etc. As you're aware, this is extraordinarily disruptive to the AfD process. I don't mind if you use personal attacks against me, however, they might discourage other editors from joining in the discussion. Thanks for your consideration. Chetsford ( talk) 15:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Editor warned. -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 18:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chetsford ( talk) 15:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Chetsford ( talk) 15:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
User:Izno, there are now five Reliable Sources in the article. Care to re-think? Newimpartial ( talk) 18:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 19:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge to Cubicle 7 (changed !vote) reviewed in two independent, reliable sources with editorial oversight - Black Gate and The Gaming Gang. Meets NBOOK and the GNG. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • (changed !vote explanation) - While I believe I have shown that GNG is met and an individual article is viable, I do recognize that Notability doesn't guarantee a separate article for each topic. In the event of a Merge, I would strongly recommend a section in Cubicle 7, alongside their card games and their non-notable RPG publications, rather than at Call of Cthulhu (role-playing game). Major multi-volume CoC settings, like this one or Delta Green, should not be collapsed into the CoC article, particularly as they can be played with other rulesets such as GUMSHOE ( Trail of Cthulhu, Fall of Delta Green, etc.). Newimpartial ( talk) 15:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC) reply
According to the article, this is a series of 9 instructional/rules books. The bare minimum of two reviews required of NBOOK apply to a single book. As for GNG, there is not a "two source" policy. GNG requires significant coverage in "multiple" sources. There is no "two and done" criteria. Chetsford ( talk) 14:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
There are at least three distinct, full length reviews from those two sources. I don't know how you don't see the GNG pass for this Origins award-winning line. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Black Gate and TheGamingGang are both independent, reliable sources. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Newimpartial, do you have to be asked at every AfD to provide links? I'm happy to look at links but I'm not going to chase down what I think might be the link you're looking at and comment on it only to find you were referring to something else. We've already had this dance. HighKing ++ 15:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
You know what? I will tell you why I don't volunteer links at every AfD; it has to do with petitioner/grantor mechanics and with my dislike of whack-a-mole.
Petitioner/grantor dynamics are discussed inter alia in Robin Laws' RPG Hillfolk. In this dynamic, a petitioner approaches a potential grantor with a request, and the grantor decides whether or not to grant the request. At AfD, whenever the nom has applied inappropriate criteria or done a poor BEFORE, their typical move is to insist that those with a better grasp of the sources not only describe what is there (which is required by policy) but then to show links, which the grantor will either recognize as reliable sources or move the goalposts again. Whack-a-mole comes in in responding to grantor's objections, like the whole digression about Designers & Dragons' INDEPENDENT status based on a potential grantor's misunderstanding of the Open Game License.
This is simply not the way AfD is supposed to work: there is not supposed to be a set of self-proclaimed gatekeepers who only do a perfunctory BEFORE check before nominating, who "force" knowledgeable participants to inform them about the reliability of sources and the status of awards, and who "require" the other participants to present links as if they, the grantors, were unable to use basic internet tools or comprehend basic texts. Whack-a-mole is exhausting, and in my view WP does not benefit from a pattern that drains editing energy into defending the existence of, rather than improving, relevant content. AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The whole process has exactly the same emotional valence for me as dealing with civil POV pushers, especially in this most recent round of nominations. Providing links to SEALIONS is well known only to encourage them... Newimpartial ( talk) 17:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Petitioner/grantor dynamics are discussed inter alia in Robin Laws' RPG Hillfolk. In this dynamic, a petitioner approaches Though an interesting anecdote, the rules of the "Hillfolk" fantasy game are not generally cross-applicable to Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia with a dedicated set of guidelines and policy. This is simply not the way AfD is supposed to work ... "require" the other participants to present links Actually, this is exactly the way Wikipedia works (through links or, in the case of offline sources, traceable citations). The existence of sources must be demonstrated, not simply declared. Per our policy: The existence of multiple significant independent sources needs to be demonstrated. Hypothetical sources (e.g. "the company is big/old/important so there must be more sources, I just don't have/can't find them") do not count towards the notability requirement. Thanks! Chetsford ( talk) 18:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Wikilawyering and straw man argumentation. In no AfD discussion have I ever merely asserted that sources exist; I have always said where they may be found. The provision of links is simply not required in WP policy, and the case of the High King asking for more detail on the Cubicle 7 chapter of Designers & Dragons in the same AfD where I had already given the page numbers for that chapter is highly illustrative of inappropriate behavior by grantors in this situation, equivalent to carping for links for sources already given by name, or your (Chet) demanding the authors and titles for print reviews for which the issue numbers had already been given.
And if you don't see that the relevance of the petitioner/grantor dynamic extends beyond the game in question, then you are just not paying attention. The best games illuminate life. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
There are now five reliable sources to the article, including sources for the two reviews, Designers & Dragons, and two reviews. If you don't think the enies count, for some reason, that still leaves four RS. Can we do better than a merge? Newimpartial ( talk) 18:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment please note that WP:WALLEDGARDEN is not a policy, purely an essay. Please provide a policy reason for deletion. Additionally describing RPG books as "a puzzle book" could be interpreted as a bad faith nom. Canterbury Tail talk 18:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
And I did so characterize it, which has led to me being impaled painfully roasted at ANI just now. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I must say I don't believe merging it into the Call of Cthulhu page would be productive, it's already a large article and this line is notable in it's own right. Not all Cthulhu licensees are notable, but due to the awards this one is. Now if we were to have a separate article on Call of Cthulhu licensees then maybe, but the section in the CoC article is already getting large and doesn't even cover all licensees. Canterbury Tail talk 21:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I also note that the current reference used for the Origins Award does not mention Cthulhu Britannica or Shadows over Scotland anywhere -- Imminent77 (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
That's my bad choice of reference. It's fixed now; my apologies. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
You mean, apart from the fact that it has won industry awards and is reliably sourced on its own? Apart from those things, sure, it would be better to merge. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Call of Cthulhu (role-playing game), as per Imminent. No notability on its own. Also, the arguments against his proposal aren't convincing. This article is for supplements for use in the Call of Cthulhu only, so that's where the redirect ought to be, not to the company. The reader will have the opportunity to read about the game and the supplements on the same page. -- 1l2l3k ( talk) 14:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There seems a rough consensus that sufficient reliable sources (both present and extant) exist to demonstrate WP:GNG. A reminder to editors on both sides, both her and in the related AfDs to remain civil (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Doctor Who Roleplaying Game

Doctor Who Roleplaying Game (  | 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 references other than to product page of publisher. A BEFORE search on Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, and newspapers.com fails to find any SIGCOV mentions in RS. Part of the Cubicle 7 WP:WALLEDGARDEN. Fails GNG. Chetsford ( talk) 08:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial ( talk) 09:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial ( talk) 09:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 09:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Since Designers & Dragons was at question in this AFD, I believe everyone in this thread has been notified or participated in the RSN discussion on the book except for User:Hobit. BOZ ( talk) 21:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Ah, I mean I did not mention the book in the AFD, but when I say "I found one more source" that was the one I was talking about. So noted in case anyone has a concern about the book as a source. BOZ ( talk) 21:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
"sources aren't great" Since five of the eight unique sources are to the company's own product page and e-store, and two of the others to trade show webpages, I'd agree with that much. Chetsford ( talk) 02:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
You may not be aware of this, Chet, but what matters at AfD (for non-BLP pages) is not the quality of sourcing in the article, but the quality of sourcing that exists. In this case the extant references are just fine; many are simply not in the article. Which is why BEFORE is more than just a Linklater film series. Newimpartial ( talk) 11:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Meets GNG. It doesn't really matter how many of the references aren't independent/RS, so long as there are multiple RS remaining. The publisher website links aren't "negative RSes". If you can delete a bunch of references and the remainder passes muster by you, I'm not sure why you wouldn't do that instead of posting an AFD. (I lie. I do know why.) - Sangrolu ( talk) 13:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Shehzad Shaikh

Shehzad Shaikh (  | 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 actor does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:ACTOR.. and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. beware of namesake. Saqib ( talk) 07:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( talk) 08:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Clarendon Road Presents: A Plastic Free Record

Clarendon Road Presents: A Plastic Free Record (  | 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:NMUSIC; references are to Weebly blogs, a Youtube video and an iTunes link. No prejudice towards a recreation, though.
Regards, SshibumXZ ( Talk) ( Contributions). 07:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Thearticlehelper101: Hi! Those all things are not of much importance in establishing the notability of an article, an article must be in compliance with either Wikipedia's general notability guidelines or Wikipedia's guidelines for music.
Regards, SshibumXZ ( Talk) ( Contributions). 19:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ SshibumXZ: This is not an article that is related to India, so maybe we could get a person who knows about albums to propose this album for deletion... This is because I have a very large background in album, and single wikipedia pages. I have created and contributed to many of Jack Johnson's single, and album pages. I have also been a pioneer in the Bahamas' albums and tours, as well as Nikki Yanofsky & Wyclef Jean articles. This article is very well written and is also specialized in Jack Johnson. Therefore I am for this article to stay up. Thank you! Wikipedia's general notability guidelines or Wikipedia's guidelines for music.
Regards, User:JozefM0000000003 ( Talk) ( Contributions). 3:56pm, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@ JozefM0000000003, Thearticlehelper101, and Hadhadhad13: Hi! Like I have said those are of not much importance to Wikipedia and don't establish notability; Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a platform to publicise a cause, however good may it be. The concerned article doesn't cite even a single reliable source and doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for albums, either as it hasn't landed on the charts for any nation's charts for music. This article not being concerned with India has no value and doesn't back up your argument.
Sidenote — I intend to open sock-puppet investigations against these accounts, as, they might be handled by one, single person and may be in violation of Wikipedia's policies on alternative accounts; there's a lot of behavioural and non-behavioural similarities among the accounts. You may want to disclose any conflict of interest or sock-puppets you may have, else, you'd be running the risk of an indefinite block from an admin.
Regards, SshibumXZ ( Talk) ( Contributions). 00:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ SshibumXZ: Hello! If this article is agreed to be deleted, could be at least make it an article draft until smore articles are made about it
Regards, User:JozefM0000000003 ( Talk) ( Contributions). 8:14pm, 14 August 2018 (US eastern time)
@ JozefM0000000003: Hi! Yep, that is an option, that should be considered; I urge the concluding admin to draftify this article per the creators wishes so that they can work to further improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SshibumXZ ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC); edited 21:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC) and 14:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC). reply
@ SshibumXZ: Okay thank you! Let's just keep the article up for a few more days to see if anything else is published about it! If that doesn't work than I can just copy the article and make a draft of the article. But please don't delete the article until I copy it and make it into a draft!
Regards, User:JozefM0000000003 ( Talk) ( Contributions). 10:47pm, 14 August 2018 (US eastern time)
  • Keep — This article should be kept because it has more notable information that just a track list. If you were to read thoroughly through the Wikipedia:Notability (music) albums section, you would see that the album would need general notability and little more than just a tracklist. Well this album has far more information than just a tracklist. It also has a lot of general notability because the album is raising money for a non for profit organization, and the albu is on iTunes. Therefore this article should be kept on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadhadhad13 ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment - it is not the presence of information in the article that counts for notability because anybody could just make an article longer by making stuff up. The problem with this article is that almost all of the information beyond the tracklist is from the same people who are trying to sell the album. If you are going to quote the notability standard, look at the whole thing, including the following from the very top of the WP:N page: "We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 17:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Rangri dialect

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

Rangri dialect is not something that would be expected to have a standalone article on English Wikipedia.. does not appear to meet GNG. Saqib ( talk) 07:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 09:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 09:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
In worst case scenario, I would opt for merge. -- Saqib ( talk) 17:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
What does that mean? Sam Sailor 18:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No further arguments for delete were set forth, and the nominator has also subsequently !voted keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Boogie2988

AfDs for this article:
Boogie2988 (  | 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:NBIO, WP:GNG Seraphim System ( talk) 06:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ( talk) 06:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: How on earth does this fail GNG? A cursory Google search turned up loads of results. The Huffington Post and Kotaku "Story of Francis" piece cited in the article, as well as this Daily Dot profile I found clearly establish notability, IMO. That said, the sources need to be massively improved--too much YouTube and Twitter. Page was deleted in 2014 (barely, I might add and it really should have been relisted) and subject has clearly increased in notability since. He also won a notable award, as well. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 07:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The HuffPo article is a minor entertainment column [39] - I'm not even sure how much weight editors give these type of feel-good HuffPo stories for notability, since HuffPo has a bit of a reputation for churnalism ("he beams a fond face to his fan base."). Kotaku is basically a blog, I don't think we could even use it as RS for a BLP. Seraphim System ( talk) 07:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Also this discussion about Daily Dot for BLPs at RS/n leaves me with the impression that Daily Dot is not a preferred source for BLPs. Usually with awards we look for coverage of the award in mainstream press sources - in this case there is a mention in [40]. That is really the only chance this has of passing WP:ANYBIO, in which case the article would most likely have to be stubified. Seraphim System ( talk) 07:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm leery of the ease with which you are dismissing these sources. WP:NEWSBLOG supports the inclusion of sources like the Kotaku and Daily Dot pieces, since those have pretty significant editorial oversight. I'm also wary of accepting a contested RSN from 4 years ago. I know this does not inherently establish notability, but the subject has over 4 million subscribers and is the first result when you type in "Boogie" on YouTube. Should be an indicator that the subject is notable as an internet personality. These sites don't just choose to cover every single Youtuber. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 16:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm going to defer to Drmies on the BLP sourcing issues. It definitely looks better after the cleanup. Seraphim System ( talk) 17:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
User:Seraphim System, this is maybe a good occasion for me to say that it is rare that I run through an article with such a blunt axe and it doesn't make me feel good. Plus, it's entirely possible that another admin thinks I revdeleted too freely, but in BLPs I'm always rather safe than sorry. It could be argued that the stuff in the article about the mother shouldn't have been revdeleted since apparently she died nine years ago, but it was pretty egregious and its only "evidence" was the subject's own YouTube video, so I find these things to be really unacceptable. There are, after all, still living relatives around, most likely. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 17:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Note. I just went through and revdeleted maybe 400 edits from the history--all BLP violating stuff sourced to YouTube. This includes all kinds of allegations phrased in Wikipedia's voice, vandalism, etc. I restored an earlier version, a clean one. So you'll have to imagine the rest of the chatty content. I compared all the sources, and the only thing that's not in the current version (besides, of course, dozens of YouTube links) is this chatty bit of entertainment news, most of it pictures and other peoples' tweets in reaction to the "news". Unfortunately there are no reactions to those tweets, but hey. Drmies ( talk) 14:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
OK, but we don't delete articles just because they're stubs. It can be improved with the sources the article possesses, and I have no doubt it passes GNG (which is the chief complaint here) even as it is. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 18:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Susmuffin, Etzedek is correct: the stub thing is not an argument for deletion. Some will never progress beyond stubs (think Olympic ice skaters of the 1890s), but that doesn't matter. There are some reliable sources right now, and the burden is on you to ponder, and discuss, whether that's enough in-depth coverage to make it pass the GNG--focus your thoughts on that. Good luck, Drmies ( talk) 00:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (not like this is a shock). Subject is notable as an internet personality (4 million subs, first hit when you search "boogie" on youtube, sites like DD, HuffPost, Kotaku don't just write about any streamer) which the sources in the article assert, as they cover the subject in substantial detail. Subject also won a notable gaming industry award. This has turned into a cleanup/RS debate (even though nom hasn't provided any compelling argument for why the sources aren't reliable) which shouldn't be what AfD is used for. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 06:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I should note that I know the subscriber count and search hit that I mentioned don't establish prima facie notability, but they are pretty significant pointers in the right direction. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 06:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - (I find deplorable that the AfD nominator seems to have attempted to pull a fast one by not notifying the article creator, so I left the notification to Czar myself). I was initially wary when Czar recreated this article in late 2016 (I had closed the 2014 AfD as a (barely) delete, enforced with G4 for years eventually salted the page due to repeated recreation), but if you'll allow me to quote my own keep rationale from a JonTron AfD: "Plenty of sources about the person and the channel from well-established RSes like [Ars Technica, Kotaku, Engadget].... I think people dismiss Youtubers and a lot of "internet culture" things because they're not into it, but WP:GNG is the baseline for every article, regardless of topic, and this article's sourcing far exceeds the requirements of GNG, even though admitting that may displease some who would like to see Wikipedia cover more academic/scientific/historical topics and less pop-culture ones." If passing GNG is somehow not convincing enough, WP:CREATIVE #1 (an "important figure" having won a major award in the major industry award ceremony) or maybe even WP:ENTERTAINER #2 might be applicable (although these are just more-specific definitions of the overarching GNG pillar). Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 16:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
If I really didnt notify the article creator that was a misclick, I rarely ever do that - I think maybe once or twice when prodding IP-created articles, but that's it. Seraphim System ( talk) 17:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
It's okay, sorry if it sounded like I assuming some malicious intent. I've notified Czar anyhow. :) Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 17:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I agree with all of this. Well said. This isn't all on Seraphim though, there was a discussion regarding this page on another talk page, where an editor (who doesn't seem to always exercise great judgement) said something along the lines of "this isn't notable." Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 01:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I would support Keep as well, at this point. The BLP cleanup seems to have helped a lot, and I did not know about the award when I nominated this. I think the sources are borderline, but the award is sufficient to pass, imo. Seraphim System ( talk) 02:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep Keep, speedily if the last "delete" argument is retracted (@ Susmuffin) since the nominator has withdrawn. In its current state, the article sits around what I originally wrote, which I considered significant coverage at the time. I'm not usually for permastubs but this (1) represents a figure proportional to his notoriety—considering the short but brief articles written about him—with a brief introductory WP article that could not adequately merge into some parent article, and (2) has an opportunity to further expand in the individual's lifetime. Re: the award, for what it's worth, it was mentioned in both the original and bloated version of the article. Worth checking for those things and attempting to engage the page history before coming to AfD. czar 10:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Super Keep - Boogie2988 is a very well-known YouTuber, with mainstream media interest and 4.5 million subscribers. One of the biggest reasons he is well-known is because he's been on YT since 2006 and has always been a decently large channel, and most remember him even from the earliest days of the platform. WikiProject YouTube rates his page as mid-importance, and I have gone and added the daily pageviews graph and it hovers between 500-1500/day in the last 30 days. It should not be such a stub. It's kind of insane that this is even being considered for deletion. Once this AfD is rightfully closed as keep, I will add an expand tag to this page. - Dmezh ( talk) 03:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Dmezh: The user that originally raised a question of notability (not nominator) did the same thing for a page I created, which also turned out to be a speedy keep. Not the best exercise in judgement, imo. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 03:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Time to put this out of our misery. Clear consensus to delete. Courcelles ( talk) 08:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Modern Mars habitability

Modern Mars habitability (  | 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 WP:POVFORK of Life_on_Mars#Habitability. Even if this topic should be spun off from the main article (I make no comment on that), this article is not that spinoff: the reliance on primary sources, the non-encyclopaedic tone, and the 200K of text all suggest that WP:TNT is the best option here. Ca2james ( talk) 04:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - it is a notable topic with many papers published on it every year, as well two conferences or conference sessions: UCLA in 2013 and NASA / LPL in 2018. The citations used are similar to those used in other Wikipedia articles in the topic area - NASA online astrobiology magazine, mainstream astrobiology journals, with preference for review papers where available, NASA press releases and so on. Much of the material in the first half is based on Nilton Renno's review paper in Space Science Reviews "Water and Brines on Mars: Current Evidence and Implications for MSL" and on the sources cited by him. The POV's are as expressed in the sources. There's also a section Modern Mars habitability#Views on the possibility of present day life on or near the surface which gives an idea of the range of views on this matter as in the sources given. If any particular sources are questionable or any POV's inaccurately summarized please elaborate on the talk page of the article. On the length then it's not a problem for those not interested in the topic or who find the section in Life on Mars#Habitability sufficent for them, by WP:NOTPAPER. And for those that need to find out more, the thoroughness of it is valuable - I have covered all the most significant findings of the last decade in this topic area succintly. On tone, then that is easily fixed by wikignoming / copy editing if you see issues of that sort. It has been in Wikipedia now since March 2017. I am baffled that it suddenly has an AfD without prior talk page discussion Robert Walker ( talk) 05:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
As the article creator I'd expect you to !vote keep. My opinion is that the article is written as an essay and the amount of copy editing needed to bring it in line with the MOS is so substantial that it would be better to blow it up and start over. The fact that you created this article to add more detail than in the Life on Mars article confirms that this is a content fork with your POV. But let's see what the community consensus is. Ca2james ( talk) 15:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Okay. A few points of clarification. It was created to expand on the Habitability section of Life on Mars but not as a POV fork. If you check the edit history I am one of the main editors of the current version of Life on Mars#Habitability. I've had a look at it to try to understand what makes it seem POV and I think you may be referring to the last paragraph of the lede, which I notice was unattributed. Sorry for the confusion. I just forgot to add cites to that sentence when summarizing the article. I have now expanded it slightly, with cites for the entire range of views in the modern debate on modern Mars habitability as described later on in the main body of the article. I don't see any other unattribued POV's; if you find any, please comment on the talk page. As for Modern Mars Habitability being larger than the section in Life on Mars#Habitability, is common to have expanded sections like this in wikipedia, e.g. Climate change feedback#Ice-albedo_feedback which I was reading earlier today and I wanted to find out more so went to the relevant expanded section. Robert Walker ( talk) 22:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Another factor might be the wikignome edit on 1st April to delete quotes from cites. After discussion on the talk page it was agreed that I could reintroduce the quotes that gave the views of editors on modern Mars habitability - but I had a lot on and never did this. I have now reintroduced them to some of the cites, making it easy to verify that their views are summarized accurately in that last paragraph of the lede. Robert Walker ( talk) 22:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
A point of clarification: the quotes in references were removed to remove excessive and inappropriate non-free content, per WP:NFCC [41] by the administrator who is possibly the most knowledgeable about copyright and fair use on Wikipedia. Characterizing that edit as "wikignoming" is a bit misleading. Ca2james ( talk) 16:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the correction - and just to say - the article didn't have more than is usual for fair use from any individual source, just lots of one to two paragraph quotes, from many different cites, intended to help the reader verify the cite quickly. I was not aware that was considered an issue here. dept Robert Walker ( talk) 03:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Another point of clarification: This article is not a WP:FORK of Life on Mars. The reason is that Life on Mars covers life through the entire history of Mars. Modern Mars habitability by focusing on present day habitats can cover it in more depth. Articles can overlap if they have significant amounts of own content, as is the case here. Robert Walker ( talk) 04:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment: on "it is a notable topic with many papers published on it every year" -- then why, when I go to Google Scholar with the search phrase "modern Mars habitability", do I get exactly ZERO citations? I can't even understand what the modifier "modern" would mean for the speculative scientific concept of the habitability of Mars. "Modern", when it applies to science at all, applies to relatively recent treatments, often with a major paradim shift, of a subject that has become classical or traditional, which is clearly not the case of the habitability of Mars, a feature of the planet that's still a matter of conjecture about conditions under which no known terrestrial lifeform can survive. You say this article isn't about "Life on Mars" but about "present-day habitats." As far as anyone can tell right now, there ARE no "present-day habitats" on Mars. Yakushima ( talk) 11:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Yakushima: This is explained in the second paragraph of the article. For anyone who votes after reading only the first paragraph, I have now edited that to say it as well. It now reads: "Modern Mars habitability is a subject of interest to astrobiologists. The title of this article is from the title for the four day NASA /LPL conference session in spring 2017 [1], to discuss whether Mars in its present state has any habitats for native microbes, lichens, or other living organisms. Robert Walker ( talk) 14:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I may have confuse some of you by calling "Modern Mars habitability" a "term" - I didn't mean a technical term like "Special region" which is the Planetary protection technical term for a region of the Mars surface where Earth life could potentially survive [2]. For this technical planetary protection term, try a Google scholar site for "Special region" Mars. More generally astrobiologists use many expressions to refer to this topic, and a search like present day Mars habitability allowing Google scholar to select the articles using its weak AI may be the best way to search. Robert Walker ( talk) 14:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
No, Robert, we are not "confused". You are in denial of the COI, OR, synthesis, bias, and gross misrepresentation of cited references. Rowan Forest ( talk) 17:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
"Astrobiology Science Conference Session on the Modern Mars Habitability" -- is the heading on an announcement, not on a conference proceedings. The announcement is phrased with a glaring grammatical error (that "the" before "Modern"), so it's patently obvious that it's not the name of the actual conference. It's a single heading for what amounts to an informal announcement. Yet it's cited in your article as if it was the title of the actual conference. It is not. See [42]. The actual conference title is "The Astrobiology Science Conference 2017 (AbSciCon 2017)", as you could see yourself by clicking on the link. I don't know whether you are being disengenuous or just sloppy. In a way, for this issue (what to call the topic), it doesn't matter. Consider what I'm looking at: a meticulous formatting of the heading of a mis-worded conference announcement as if it was the title of the actual conference, in support of the idea that "Modern Mars Habitability" is how any scientist refers, in professionally-edited RS, to your supposedly notable topic. This is simply yet more evidence for a hypothesis with years of supporting evidence on Wikipedia: your aparent lack of WP:Competence. Ordinarily, AGF requires me to believe that apparently incompetent editing owes to problems of understanding. At this point, Robert, with so many years of edits -- and tangles with other editors -- behind you, is that remotely credible? If in fact it's still somehow a simple matter of a lack of understanding, it would necessarily to owe to some chronic cognitive deficit that allows you to write on complex topics while missing glaring errors in your writing and the writing of others. Really? I'd get that looked at, if I were you. Perhaps there are medications that can help. (Honestly, I've wondered about this ever since that tangle we had elsewhere, about your claim that lunar platinum was so abundant and easily extracted that it could even become a construction material.) The problem with the AGF assumption, however, is that these errors are not randomly distributed. They are tendentious, POV-oriented, OR-oriented -- after years of being told to not do that. In this light, your excuses along the lines of "I forgot", even if true, imply, "I didn't think it was worth remembering." Any such evaluation signals, after all this time, nothing but contempt for the process. It doesn't matter how obsequious your apologies might sound to your own ears. They ring hollow in ours, and for good reason. Why should I or anyone continue to Assume Good Faith when your lack of it looks so undeniable now? Yakushima ( talk)
And, as if adding more words could make a false statement true, we have Robert (in apparent response to my comment on the term "Modern Mars Habitability"), insisting that the Modern Mars Habitability session of a conference with a different name) was four days long. [43] No. the session wasn't. It looks like it took place on a Wednesday and a Thursday, with an evening poster session on a Monday. [44] At least they didn't call it "THE Modern Mars Habitability." A quick check of most of the abstracts reveals that, except for a few non-native-English-speakers, the term "modern" is mostly avoided, with a preference for "present-day" or "recent." Where "modern" modifies a term in the abstract, it almost invariably refers to specific measurements or phenomena, not to the concept of Mars Habitability. "Habitability of Modern Mars" would have been a barely acceptable title, though "Habitability of Present-Day Mars" would have been better, and, because "habitability" carries the nuance of "human-habitability" (in WP:COMMONNAME terms) "Life on Present-Day Mars" would have been better still. But hey, how about "Possibilities for Life on Mars"? Or hey, I know: " Life on Mars"! "Modern Mars Habitability" might as well have been "Habitability of Mars -- New and Improved! (by Robert Walker.)" This is a pretty obvious failure of WP:COMMONNAME. It's not how most laymen would express the actual concept, nor is there much evidence that the term "Modern Mars Habitability" has ever been used habitually except by a single session organizer for a conference in 2017. Yakushima ( talk) 05:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
YakushimaSorry I can't change the title in the middle of an AfD and nobody suggested issues with it before. It's about the habitats not the search for life, after all by Charles Cockell's work they could all be uninhabited habitats. All we have at present is that NASA [45], ESA (European Space Agency) [46] and DLR (German Aerospace, Berlin) [47] have investigating them as a top priority. E.g. Objective B of NASA's first science goal is "Determine if environments with high potential for current habitability and expression of biosignatures contain evidence of extant life.". This is the WP:POV I intended to express in both title and article. The platinum idea is from Dennis Wingo's "Moon Rush" which I find an interesting possibility; it is not my own. Robert Walker ( talk) 07:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for very much the reasons laid out in the nomination: a) content fork with b) a strong POV flavour and c) overly strong synthesis based on d) too much primary sourcing. A monolithic contribution like this (200k+ added in one fell swoop) does run the risk of being assessed as a bloc rather than in bits and pieces, and the overall impression I get is that this will be very, very hard to fix piecemeal. Suggest TNT, then stepwise improvement of the existing treatment at Life_on_Mars#Habitability followed by spin-off when indicated. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 17:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This article unfortunately points up the creator's massive loquaciousness (the lede alone is currently 14 paragraphs) and lack of understanding of how the Wikipedia encyclopedia should be written and sourced. I suggest that if the article creator wants to keep it that he turn it into some kind of eBook, Kindle book, or website, for those interested in this kind of relatively speculative (and WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH) sort of material, and massive disruptive images. As Elmidae states above, this article cannot be salvaged for Wikipedia purposes at this point, so a WP:TNT is in order if at all. Softlavender ( talk) 01:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC); edited 05:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Please note, I got distracted by work for the t-ban appeal mid edit of the lede. It is not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. It is just that I had left some extra paragraphs in the lede by mistake that didn't belong there, and because it is mid edit I haven't yet cited many of the sentences which are indeed based on WP:RS Robert Walker ( talk) 02:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I wasn't talking about the lede. Softlavender ( talk) 05:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I was replying to your first sentence there. Robert Walker ( talk) 07:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Since this AfD started, you have been massively adding to the lede, which was the least of the article's problems. You do not understand WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, which have nothing to do with RS. The fact is, you created and posted a massive mess of an article that as Cullen points out is 10 times longer than it should be, and as other people have pointed out, is a largely unsalvageable personal essay. You then posted a 3,500-byte notice about the lede in the middle of this AfD, even though only one person had mentioned the lede and only to say it was too long. Softlavender ( talk) 10:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I had had no talk page comments on the article for over six months when it was unexpectedly taken to AfD on a bunch of issues that nobody had raised with me before. When I reviewed the list of issues then they seemed to me to apply mainly to the lede. Also no other section in the article has been mentioned by name, only the lede. Robert Walker ( talk) 05:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a massively bloated personal essay based on primary sources, synthesis and original research. Any acceptable article would be no more than one-tenth this length and would concisely summarize secondary sources. The article is full of essay-like language and I see no way forward to salvage this and convert it into an acceptable encyclopedia article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete because I can't find one scholarly source that uses the term "Modern Mars habitability" (e.g. zero from Google scholar; zero, therefore, confirmation test that google scholar is working). I then opened the first 5 cites in this article, again none I could find using that phrase. I see search returns for "Mars habitability", but too few that such a fiction novel-style bloated article seems unjustified. Why not merge this with Life_on_Mars#Habitability section?, or distill any new sources down to one or at best a few paragraphs somewhere appropriate in the Life on Mars article. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 03:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Rowan Forest: Your thoughts would be appreciated here, given the effort you have put into the Life on Mars article. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 03:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The title comes from the title of the 2017 conference session on Modern Mars Habitability, which ran from April 24–28 in Mesa, Arizona [3] Robert Walker ( talk) 04:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — This assay is the final dump of Robert's POV on the subject which he was unable to insert elsewhere in Wikipedia. Indeed, he created this assay as a POV fork of Life on Mars (habitability of Mars). He has a very, very, very long history of promoting fringe views on current Martian life at the surface, and on the planet's current habitability. His favorite trick is invoking that his sources are all "modern", therefore he wants to trump all consensus, knowledge and theories about the habitability of Mars. Besides his cherry-picking of fringe hypotheses, he pours his own enthusiastic POV, spiced with obnoxious amounts of synthesis. Finally, his walls of text have un-encyclopedic writing style and format. Be advised he also indulges in WP:CHEESE during discussions on this subject, which prompted me years ago to not interact with him, but just contain the damage of his assays. Cheers, Rowan Forest ( talk) 13:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC) (Formerly BatteryIncluded) reply
  • Delete POV fork as others have said. Full disclosure, I'm married to an astrobiologist who sometimes works on this topic. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC) OH, OF COURSE.... When Robert created this, we already had a full article on this topic at Colonization of Mars. I might have suggested, "Merge", but as others have often said, Robert's style is better suited to solo writing and self publishing, and I doubt a merge effort would advance without a fair bit of disruption. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 22:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Minor point of correction. Was not a POV fork when it was created. Check 19th March 2017. Robert Walker ( talk) 21:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC). reply
Well... Modern Mars habitability looks like a spinoff of the 2017 - even the 2015 - version of that section; it also looks like it had its roots in Draft:Present day habitability of Mars, which was rejected in 2015 for being OR and reading like an essay, and where it was pointed out that Life on Mars#Habitability already existed. On that Talk page, you write But I don't feel I can write on this topic myself, if I can only mention the point of view that Mars surface is uninhabitable for present day life. To me it appears that you wanted to include much more detail than was in the original article, and to include a POV (namely, that Mars can support life) that was not in the article. That seems to be a POVFORK to me although it may not have been your intent to create one. Ca2james ( talk) 02:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
It is true that back in 2015 it was rejected as a POV fork of the main Life on Mars#Habitability because at the time that section said the surface of Mars is uninhabitable. That is why I didn't add it.
In spring 2017 I was able to edit the main article to represent the WP:POV of mainstream astrobiologists, including the NASA planetary protection officers, most astrobiologists publishing in Astrobiology journal, DLR's HOME project, etc, that it is an open question whether such habitats exist. I created this article at that point in time, and it was not a WP:POVFORK at that time. Check Life on Mars#Present - 19th March 2017. After this AfD started I checked it for the first time this year, and noticed that another editor has since edited it back to say that the surface of Mars is uninhabitable, see Life on Mars#Cumulative effects. This section refers to dormant life which is indeed killed over a timescale of 500,000 years. However, NASA's Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group concluded from Curiosity RAD measurements that even the most sensitive microbes such as E.coli would survive 500 years of cosmic radiation and as you can read in their report, this is not used as a criterion for the Mars "Special regions" where Earth life may be able to survive [4]. Robert Walker ( talk) 14:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "Astrobiology Science Conference Session on the Modern Mars Habitability". Lunar and Planetary Institute. organized by Carol Stoker, NASA Ames Research Center, and Alfred McEwen, LPI, University of Arizona, April 24–28, 2017
  2. ^ Rummel, John D.; Beaty, David W.; Jones, Melissa A.; Bakermans, Corien; Barlow, Nadine G.; Boston, Penelope J.; Chevrier, Vincent F.; Clark, Benton C.; de Vera, Jean-Pierre P.; Gough, Raina V.; Hallsworth, John E.; Head, James W.; Hipkin, Victoria J.; Kieft, Thomas L.; McEwen, Alfred S.; Mellon, Michael T.; Mikucki, Jill A.; Nicholson, Wayne L.; Omelon, Christopher R.; Peterson, Ronald; Roden, Eric E.; Sherwood Lollar, Barbara; Tanaka, Kenneth L.; Viola, Donna; Wray, James J. (2014). "A New Analysis of Mars "Special Regions": Findings of the Second MEPAG Special Regions Science Analysis Group (SR-SAG2)" (PDF). Astrobiology. 14 (11): 887–968. Bibcode: 2014AsBio..14..887R. doi: 10.1089/ast.2014.1227. ISSN  1531-1074. PMID  25401393.
  3. ^ "Astrobiology Science Conference Session on the Modern Mars Habitability". Lunar and Planetary Institute.
  4. ^ Rummel, John D.; Beaty, David W.; Jones, Melissa A.; Bakermans, Corien; Barlow, Nadine G.; Boston, Penelope J.; Chevrier, Vincent F.; Clark, Benton C.; de Vera, Jean-Pierre P.; Gough, Raina V.; Hallsworth, John E.; Head, James W.; Hipkin, Victoria J.; Kieft, Thomas L.; McEwen, Alfred S.; Mellon, Michael T.; Mikucki, Jill A.; Nicholson, Wayne L.; Omelon, Christopher R.; Peterson, Ronald; Roden, Eric E.; Sherwood Lollar, Barbara; Tanaka, Kenneth L.; Viola, Donna; Wray, James J. (2014). "A New Analysis of Mars "Special Regions": Findings of the Second MEPAG Special Regions Science Analysis Group (SR-SAG2)". Astrobiology. 14 (11): 887–968. Bibcode: 2014AsBio..14..887R. doi: 10.1089/ast.2014.1227. ISSN  1531-1074. PMID  25401393.
Issues with the lede

This was originally a separate section AFTER the discussion. This apparently is not permitted which is why it was turned into a block of text. Not meant disruptively and I am very sorry! But can't change it now per WP:REDACT. Robert Walker ( talk) 08:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Please everyone bear with me. I am in a difficult situation with a simultaneous AfD and topic ban appeal. This article was here for well over a year and nobody found any issues with it.

  • The problems of WP:POV are actually WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. - the POV's are cited now, in the lede, including the mainstream WP:POV but previously they were only cited in the body not in the lede. Just a matter of copying cites into the lede and expanding that section a bit.
  • The problems with sourcing are just that I have not copied all the necessary cites into the lede yet. Sentences that may seem WP:OR if you are not familiar with this area are well sourced later in the article but I haven't copied the cites into the lede yet.
  • The problem with encyclopedic tone is one that I am working on. - it seems to be mainly an issue with the lede, at least, that is the only part that anyone has commented on. It was the main reason for working on the lede. I believe that it is now fixed. If you have thoughts about this do please comment on the article talk page with any criticisms or suggestions!
  • The bloated lede was an accident. I left several large paragraphs in the lede by mistake that did not belong there. They were not cited yet because it was mid edit.

As a quick response I have deleted the material that got added to the lede by mistake, and done a quick rewrite. There are still several uncited sentences in the lede. They are all backed up by WP:RS but I need time to find the sources and copy them into the lede. I will have time to do more work on this after the t-ban appeal. @ Ca2james: it would have been much appreciated if you had raised this issue on the talk page first. Also it would have helped if you had chosen any other occasion to do it over the last year, instead of right in the middle of the t-ban appeal. The timing was unfortunate.

In our past collaboration you contributed as a wikignome. As the article progressed you agreed that I had improved it by responding to your comments [48] [49] [50] and at the end were satisfied with the article. Sadly, as soon as we were finished, two other editors from the main article came and merged it away. However we did our work there in good faith as I had been told by one editor on the Talk:Morgellons page that this was an appropriate article to write. We weren't to know that two other editors would disagree and merge it away.

I was so surprised that this time you just took the article straight to AfD. I have several good articles to my name here. See for instance Hexany. I created the article and did more than 50% of the edits [51]. It was one of my first articles here. I am also one of the main editors of Planetary protection and of Regular diatonic tuning amongst other work here. Robert Walker ( talk) 04:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

The problems with tone are mainly with the whole article, not just the lede. The problems with POV are that the whole article is an exercise in original research and synthesis. The bloating is not confined to the lede but again is a problem with the whole article. I'm not required to discuss the AfD nomination with you first. I saw the article, saw the problems, thought the problems would require more work to fix than starting over, and nominated it. Articles can be nominated for deletion at any time. That you have worked on other articles and they still exist has no bearing on this discussion. Ca2james ( talk) 04:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Robert, no one has even mentioned the lede except to say it's too long. The fact that you can't follow/understand what people are saying and are instead posting a gigantic unnecessary/unwanted wall of text here, massively cluttering up the AfD discussion, is yet another symptom of your lack of competence where Wikipedia is concerned. Softlavender ( talk) 05:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Softlavender: You did however say that the lede was too long as your first sentence. I took you to mean that was the most important point and two oppose votes were added at a time when the lede was excessively long by mistake. It is still too long I agree, I am studying MOS:LEAD and working out how to trim it down. It is very important for the issue of encyclopedic tone and WP:POV as I need to establish quickly that this is a notable subject, and that the topic of Modern Mars Habitability is a topic of major conferences, that Mars simulation chambers are built to investigate it, and it is under investigation by teams of researchers worldwide. Without that background the reader doesn't have sufficient information to assess the weight and interest of the rest of the article. Perhaps much of the rest of the lede should go into a first "Historical" section. I am working on this. I have had to do this on an article that I wrote over a year ago, and as the first ever objection of this nature. Please be patient, especially as I have a topic ban appeal to respond to at the same time. Also please don't use my talk page style as a reason to delete a notable article. It should be assessed based on the value of the article rather than talk page verbosity of its author. Thanks! Robert Walker ( talk) 11:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

The core of the problem is well beyond the format, or style. I focus on content and scientific accuracy, and the the consensus of astrobiologists. Robert is in complete denial that the surface of Mars is deemed sterile and lethal. He choses to only pick the fringe hypotheses and misrepresent them to fit his beliefs. For example he claims that the radiation at the surface is benevolent, as well as the TOXIC perchlorates on the surface, despite the extensive data on the contrary.(See: [1]) All the problems related to substance in his assay are rooted in his beliefs on Martians, the imminent Martian invasion brought upon the future sample-return, and his ignoring mainstream science. I respectfully suggest to not prolong the outcome of this AfD. Rowan Forest ( talk) 16:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Wadsworth, J; Cockell, CS (2017). "Perchlorates on Mars enhance the bacteriocidal effects of UV light". Sci Rep. 7 (1): 4662. Bibcode: 2017NatSR...7.4662W. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-04910-3. PMC  5500590. PMID  28684729.
  • Comment Robert writes "This article was here for well over a year and nobody found any issues with it." Not a legitimate argument against deletion. See WP:LONGTIME. Why DID it go so long before AfD nom? From my own experience, here's what I'd guess: It could just be that most editors who noticed the new article and who might have addressed the issues with it were already too exhausted from previous WP:CHEESE tangles with Robert. Yakushima ( talk) 11:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Exactly, Yakushima. Exhausted, yet relieved that his collection of assays were dumped at a single page that is not linked by any other article or navigation template. That was the best I could wish for as administrators have never realized (or believed) the extent of Robert's conflict of interest, bias, and synthesis, so all these years has eluded a ban. Rowan Forest ( talk) 16:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
As explained above, we already have an article on this topic at Colonization of Mars. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Thank you for pointing this out, did not see this. prokaryotes ( talk) 00:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Prokaryotes: and @ NewsAndEventsGuy: - FYI - this article is not about Colonization of Mars. It is about whether there are habitats on Mars right now for native extant martian life, and also habitats that Earth microbes might proliferate in if they are accidentally introduced, of relevance for Planetary protection Robert Walker ( talk) 03:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Robertinventor, while the article naming is not exactly descriptive, Life on Mars#Habitability or Colonization of Mars#Conditions for human habitation, is already quiet extensive and seems to cover this article scope. Thus, I would prefer to either stick to those articles, or opt for a new article dubbed Mars habitability at those article talk pages. prokaryotes ( talk) 03:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Prokaryotes It is permitted to have separate articles if each one has substantial amounts of its own content. In this case
  • Modern Mars habitability by being focused on present day habitats can cover it in much more depth
  • Life on Mars covers life through the entire history of Mars and not just the present day.

For your other example,

  • Colonization of Mars for its most part is about how humans can adapt Mars to their purposes. The question of whether there are habitats for extant life on Mars is of relevance only in so far as it either adversely impacts on colonization or it assists it
  • Modern Mars habitability is about habitats that exist already in n pristine unmodified Mars. It does not cover any topics to do with colonization.

Two articles should indeed be merged if they are on the same subject with the same scope, but that is not the case here. Robert Walker ( talk) 04:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Much of this article seems to be copied verbatim from this 2015 [52] blog entry by Robert Walker. And yet, the blog is not cited. Why not? Well, at this point, under AGF, I'm supposed to assume that Robert Walkerdoesn't quite understand RS and sourcing requirements on Wikipedia, and that he also doesn't understand the concept of self-plagiarism either. That's scarcely credible, considering how long he's been editing on Wikipedia, and in this disruptive style where he rather blatantly violates policies and guidelines, then injects walls of text into the ensuing discussion of the problematic behavior. Yes, even if you edit your own past writing into an article, you're supposed to say where and when you're doing that. He can't possibly NOT know that, at this point. And this is the nth time he's punched back against his misbehavior with his walls of text in discussion of contributions. Delete, AND report the misbehavior. Yes, it's chronic. And apparently incorrigible. Yakushima ( talk) 05:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
It's the other way around. I don't want to fill this AfD discussion with an explanation of its complex history which I also have had to unearth by chasing things up part of which I'd forgotten. The main thing is that I am the sole author. It originated in Wikipedia as a user draft. That blog you found is a minor one I have on Tumblr. I think I only put it there in the process of trying to find a place to put it where the links to the footnotes worked. I have two other online vresions that attribute the user draft correctly. So - yes I should have attributed myself here on Wikipedia, but do bear in mind, I was the sole author. I can add an explanation of what happened to the talk page of Modern Mars habitability. I have never come across policies and guidelines on self plagiarism. But surely it is permitted to copy your own Wikipedia content off wiki? And I don't think it can be a serious offence to forget to attribute yourself on Wikiedia on a minor blog post you'd forgotten about. Robert Walker ( talk) 06:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
So, if I understand right - the thing is I am supposed to attribute my own past drafts in Wikipedia if I copy a draft into mainspace even if I am the sole author? Is that what you are saying? I was not aware of this rule. There are vast numbers of wikipedia guidelines and rules. I can certainly do that if it is needed, trace back its past history and post to the talk page of Modern Mars habitability with it. Robert Walker ( talk) 06:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Also the "issues with the lede" was added as an extra section at the end after the discussion. It was not inserted into the discussion. I didn't realize that you shouldn't do that. Another editor said I mustn' make a sub-heading and converted it into a block of text. After that people treated it as part of the discussion and added more votes below it. I can't edit it any more per WP:REDACT. But it was not meant disruptively. You can see what it was like originally here [53] Robert Walker ( talk) 07:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
"I have two other online vresions that attribute the user draft correctly. So - yes I should have attributed myself here on Wikipedia, but do bear in mind, I was the sole author." At the same time, at the blog I found, you said the article included contributions from others. Quoting: " It is just about all my own work. Some parts of it started off as a deleted section from an old version of the Water on Mars article. This was the result of previous work by many editors." So are you sole author OR NOT? How are we supposed to tell what's your own writing and what's plagiarism? You keep defending yourself with "yes, maybe I should have done this", "yes, maybe I should have done that," "I didn't want to create confusion" (but in the process, generating more confusion.) You could have userfied the text on Wikipedia, worked on the draft here, and kept attribution tby other editors clear. You didn't do that. What's really going on here, notwithstanding all your apologetics, is your contempt for Wikipedia process, a process that's evolved to prevent self-aggrandizing behavior, evolved to emphasize cooperation. I have no idea why you think you're so special as to be above all the protocol that applies to us mere-mortal editors. What's certain here, though: being above all that mere-mortal stuff IS how you think of yourself. WHenever you think the world needs more of your endless treatments, you just slosh them in here. Yakushima ( talk) 11:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Oh sorry. So first, yes I did attribute the original draft there. Yes - that would be accurate then, go by what I wrote then. So, you are right. I made a mistake and I should attribute the earlier Life on Mars editors in some way.
None of this is intentional. This is three years ago during which time I have had many life events, including stressful events here in Wikipedia. Have you not forgotten some of the things you did three years ago? For me Wikipedia is normally a minor thing where I do a few edits from time to time a week, and then occasionally I have contributed larger articles where I felt I could contribute to the encyclopedia. Perhaps I have contributed half a dozen total since I've been here. I am not familiar with all the in's and out's of Wikipedia protocols in the way of an editor who does hundreds of edits a week.
I beleive it to be a good article. I added it in good faith to benefit Wikipedia. Whether you want it in Wikipedia is for other editors here to decide.
I do not understand what you mean. How could I have userified the old Water on Mars#Possibility of Mars having enough water to support life? At any rate the past is the past, if there was a way to do it, I did not know of it at the time. If there is a way to attribute now, do say. As you mention I did attribute the off wiki copy. I seem to have lost the attribution in the drafts in my user space, perhaps because I didn't userify the original section, whatever that might mean. Are you saying you can clone an article along with its history into your user space? If so, I did not know that or I would have done so.
If the article is deleted then I have a copy in an external wiki. I will add an attribution to that old version of Life on Mars to it. Meanwhile I will add an attribution to the old version of Life on Mars to Modern Mars habitability using one of the Wikipedia attribution templates which should fix this issue that you have identified with it. Thanks! Robert Walker ( talk) 18:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per pretty much everyone. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 04:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Human habitation on Mars is perforce speculative, but a page on how it can be achieved is worth having, & it's not like there's a huge space issue (unlike a paper encyclopedia). Issues of tone, POV, OR, whatever can be sorted out; it's not like every page created is a GA candidate from edit one, after all (or even edit 1000). Yes, as an SF buff, I have a bias, but don't think it governs; I happen to believe establishing human presence on Mars is stupid from a delta-v standpoint for the foreseeable future. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
It's not an article about HUMAN habitation on Mars. Did you read the article before voting? Yakushima ( talk) 11:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Actually, this is my bad. I skimmed the article when this first came up, and have spent 70% of my wiki time the last few days dealing with Roberts walls of text... I admit I got carelessly confused and posted the false article scope at some other venues. Apologies to Trekphiler who probably followed one of those comments here. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Yes - don't know if this is something that is taken ccount of in AfD closing decisions, but you can tell by comparing names that a lot of the delete votes here are from people who were involved in a simultaneous topic ban discussion - see my declined appeal. They are not topic specialists. Typically they have no knowledge of Biology or Microbiology or Planetary protection or Astrobiology, or of what counts as suitable sources for this topic area. They voted based on my talk page behaviour during the topic ban appeal amd matters discussed there on an unrelated topic area. Of the complaints against me on this article, the only one many of them are able to judge on is encyclopedic tone. Robert Walker ( talk) 13:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
TREKphiler: Yakushima is spot on. This article is neither about nor intended to be about "human habitation" or "how it can be achieved". A quick read of Robert Walker's comments and the article sections suggest that his article is RW's synthesis about "life supporting habitats on 'modern' Mars or somewhere deeper beyond the surface layers, and whether/what forms of life already exist on it". Robert Walker's article uses publications that do not appear to have the word "Mars" or "planet" or "astro*"-related content (e.g. Zuo et al, Molecular assessment of salt-tolerant, perchlorate- and nitrate-reducing microbial cultures, pmid|24150694 see below). FWIW, this is not my field, for full disclosure, and I comment here from wikipedia's content policies perspective. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 15:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Yes, when WP:synthesis is not enough, he often adds fluff-references that do not support the statement but gives the impression that his own POV has reliable references. The whole assay is compromised with misrepresentation and out of context references. It is not salvageable. Rowan Forest ( talk) 15:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Small erratum: That PMID doesn't point to Zuo et al.; you want PMID  19809137. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Indeed. Thanks for the correct PMID, Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 21:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Since we are in an ANI proceeedings related to Robert Walker, I provide the link of the full paper which I checked for "Mars, planet, astro*" etc to conclude RW has continued WP:OR-synthesis. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 13:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Robert is not a biologist either, so his attack strategy to dismiss other people's feedback is null. I am a biologist and I did work in astrobiology and I can say that Robert has been the biggest liability to Wikipedia in this subject for many years. And no, the problem is not limited the title, or a misunderstanding, or the length of the introduction, or the absolute lack of encyclopedic tone, but his pervasive POV and synthesis of biased BS, and his using Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote his blog and beliefs. Reality check: the surface is deemed sterile, known in situ to be bathed in radiation and known in situ to be toxic (10x more lethal than thought 2 years ago! See: [1]) yet, he even moved up to the introduction: "The environment on Mars potentially is basically one giant dinner plate for Earth organisms". Robert's shameful assay runs amok with things like these in defiance of actual scientific knowledge and consensus. His Martian hysteria has persisted for too many years in several Wikipedia articles, and I had to cleanup every time, and weather the unavoidable dramas and walls-of-text. He is not here to build an encyclopedia, and I strongly suspect Robert's only interest in this subject is to mimic his blog content in Wikipedia to give himself some credibility. Robert is unable to understand that this is not his blog, and that we are not just fans talking about his "publications", despite the self-reminder he added at his user page, which brings the need to remark that WP:Competence is required. I must admit that I felt somewhat relieved when he gathered all his assays on Mars and dumped them here, in a single article, because I thought his chronic damage to Wikipedia would be contained in a single page. I just have no more energy left for him and undergo the process of a Mars topic ban, but I am willing to support it and find relevant diffs if the community takes it that way. Rowan Forest ( talk) 15:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC) (formerly BatteryIncluded) reply
Agree with Rowan that CIR is the real issue here... Same problems led to an indef subject Tban (on Buddhism) which AN recently refused to lift. If we had a reason to think this user is improving their skills at collaboration and writing under our policies, there might be hope, but I hate to just add a Tban on Mars and have these problems migrate to some other subject area. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Just read this from Rowan Forest. If the WP:NOTHERE attitude persists in other topics, the only path to avoid further disruption would be a site ban. We're not there yet, but I'd urge Robertinventor to reflect on his goals and their compatibility with the WP:five pillars and other Wikipedia policies. — JFG talk 17:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Correction, we've already been through this with the Buddhism topic area. From that perspective, the same attitude is "persisting in other topics" (i.e., this one) so I think we are indeed already there. An ANI complaint is now pending. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Appears the author already has a blog with much the same content. [54] This makes the article a massive WP:COPYVIO in addition to the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues. WP:DYNAMITE is the only option. — JFG talk 17:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The article originated in Wikipedia as a user space draft. The copies off-wiki attribute the draft. There is no WP:COPYVIO involved. Robert Walker ( talk) 18:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply

List of projects for notifications

[PLEASE KEEP THIS AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE - we are required to add these notices at the end of an AfD page. For some reason I am not permitted to make subsections of this AfD. But I have to add this material! Thanks!

[THIS IS A COMMENT I MADE ON ONE OF THE NOTIFICATIONS THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE CLOSING ADMIN]

There is an article at AfD that may interest you. The article is here Modern Mars habitability. Please comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Modern Mars habitability I'd like to register an objection to how this AfD was advertised in the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mars by @ NewsAndEventsGuy: He said:

"We have at least two articles about colonization, Colonization of Mars (created in or before 2006) and Modern_Mars_habitability (created in May 2017)"

Modern Mars habitability is not an article about colonization. It is an article primarily about the habitability of Mars for extant native Mars life. He continues

"Mars eds may wish to comment whether there is enough good material at newer article to merge, or if it should be deleted outright. So far the only "keep" WP:NOTVOTE is from the article creator, and many have suggested deletion."

I have pinged @ NewsAndEventsGuy: but he has not responded and since that comment has posted we have had several new delete votes here. Robert Walker ( talk) 07:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I was pinged at bedtime. I corrected my mistake at breakfast. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Corrected now, thanks! Robert Walker ( talk) 13:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC) For closing editor - I thought I should mention this on the AfD page as it may be relevant if we get some last minute "keep's" enough for a possible decision of "no consensus", as it may have influenced votes between its posting and the correction here [55]. Robert Walker ( talk) 13:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Robert, the one Keep vote besides your own was from someone who was confused, who thought the article was about human habitability or colonization. When his error was pointed out, he responded, admitting error. Minus that vote, and minus yours, it's solidly "delete" here. So, if anything, your main hope of getting any more Keep votes is that yet MORE people will be confused about what the article actually covers, under the assumption that you wrote about human habitability of Mars. Yakushima ( talk) 05:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Yakushima I follow due process here and have no wish to get keeps through mistaken votes. The Keep you mention, in my view, and surely for the closing admin, should be discounted. Robert Walker ( talk) 15:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Wadsworth, J; Cockell, CS (2017). "Perchlorates on Mars enhance the bacteriocidal effects of UV light". Sci Rep. 7 (1): 4662. Bibcode: 2017NatSR...7.4662W. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-04910-3. PMC  5500590. PMID  28684729.
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 Userfy. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) TheMightyPeanut ( talk) 01:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Tom Ross(Rugby Union)

Tom Ross(Rugby Union) (  | 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 rugby union player is not yet notable. He fails WP:NRU, not having played any match in a professional competition in his career. He has only played in the amateur John I Dent Cup and at youth level. TheMightyPeanut ( talk) 02:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator – as per Nosebagbear's comments below, this can be treated as a WP:USERFY. TheMightyPeanut ( talk) 01:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - As TheMightyPeanut has said, player has not played competitively as of yet, and hasn't yet been named in a National Rugby Championship squad yet, and so will not play professionally until 2019 at the earliest at the moment, so fails WP:NRU – User:Harriesss User talk:Harriesss 10:13, 13 August 2018 (BST)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Userfy - the two above statements are evidently correct as regards notability. However, as the literal only (non-afd) edit is by the creator, a direct userfy seems a significantly more reasonable option that a straight delete. @ TheMightyPeanut and CAPTAIN RAJU: - please let me know if I've missed something that means delete is more appropriate than userfy. Nosebagbear ( talk) 18:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Yes, you're absolutely right. I'll withdraw the AfD request and treat as a WP:USERFY. TheMightyPeanut ( talk) 01:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Cubicle 7. Sandstein 19:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Doctor Who: The Card Game

Doctor Who: The Card Game (  | 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 on a card game is devoid of any WP:INDEPENDENT sources. BEFORE fails to find any RS mentions. Fails GNG. Part of a WP:WALLEDGARDEN involving Cubicle 7 company. Chetsford ( talk) 02:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

What would we merge? Nothing in the article has an WP:INDEPENDENT source. Wikipedia is for providing encyclopedic treatment of notable subjects, not for providing carbon copies of a company's product pages. Chetsford ( talk) 08:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 826 National. Up to editors whether to merge anything from history. Sandstein 19:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

826 Boston

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

local branch of a national organization. We normally do not make such articles. The one rRS is nt sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Normally I'd agree, but many other branches of this organization have Wikipedia pages to themselves. The non-profit only recently converted "national," and used to be a series of copycat pop-ups. Each 826 has its own website, theme, and is referred to as an "826 location," not "826 National" location. News coverage for different branches doesn't overlap. See 826LA, 826 Valencia, 826michigan and even James Franco (who helped fund 826DC) for coverage of chapters as separate entities. If this is deleted for being a chapter, all 4 other current-standing Wiki pages of 826 chapters should be deleted for clarity, and morphed into either an 826 page or fall under 826 National... except the founding part of this organization was 826 Valencia, not the national office. I agree it's a dicey situation, but considering the small size (8 chapters), I think this page should stay just for clarity's sake. Rexlikescheese ( talk) 01:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
every local branch of a national organization has its own website. At this point, everything that could possibly have a website has its own website,. DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC) reply
You can delete it, but what do we do about its contents? It might be suitable for the 826 National page, but what about the other branches ( 826LA and 826 Valencia)? We can't delete 826 Valencia because this was the foundation of the company. We also can't delete 826 National because this is the umbrella for all the organizations now, but started after 826 Valencia. Should we delete 826LA?
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 18:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Solomon Hicks

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

Was dePRODed without addressing the issue(s). Concern =Despite the plethora of sources,none of them are reliable or mainstream media carrying an in-depth coverage - they are all either ticketing agencies or adverts for concerts (The NYT is a fleeting mention). No compelling claims of importance or significance. Notability is not inherited. Not published by or signed to a major label. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 21:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Traveller (role-playing game). Two merge, two delete, this is the compromise. Up to editors whether to merge anything from history. Sandstein 19:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

The Imperial Data Recovery System

The Imperial Data Recovery System (  | 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 se no basis for notability except the one very short veryhnegative review, and no reason to expect anything more DGG ( talk ) 07:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. (I accidentally relisted about 14 hours before the full 7-day mark but I really doubt that changes anything.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 17:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I´m not expert on this kind of magazines, but in what aspects The Space Gamer fails as a RS? Pavlor ( talk) 10:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I checked newspapers.com and it appears The Space Gamer was not - itself - sourced by other RS, which is a key characteristic of a RS (along with a gatekeeping process and a physical persona by which it can accept legal liability for what it publishes). Chetsford ( talk) 12:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
That would be a notability requirement for its own article, not for RS status as source for Wikipedia. If they have (had) editorial oversight, that should be enough (more than enough for a mere mention in another article). Pavlor ( talk) 12:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
No, I'm afraid that's not right. The Daily Mail and Breitbart have gatekeeping processes and we've already determined they're not RS. Editorial oversight is only one of several considerations in the correct evaluation of whether an outlet is RS. Chetsford ( talk) 12:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
These were excluded on case by case basis. Spreading lies and inventing stories certainly is not something one would expect from RS. Can you say the same about The Space Gamer? If not, then comparison to the Daily Mail is certainly not valid. Pavlor ( talk) 14:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
No, because it's (/was) so small and incidental that no RS ever subjected it to scrutiny. Absence of scrutiny is not evidence of reliability. My neighbor and I can start publishing a newsletter using the copy machines at FedEx Office with me as editor and my neighbor as reporter. That doesn't make us a RS. I understand you believe that "If they have (had) editorial oversight, that should be enough" but that's incorrect. I'm going to wrap it up and leave it there; I apologize if I came across as blunt but this isn't an efficient conversation as "If they have (had) editorial oversight, that should be enough" is simply, and objectively, false. Thanks! Chetsford ( talk) 15:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
It is obvious I don´t share your point of view. And your comparison is again, well, flawed. Per WP:RS: Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.
  • Mike Ashley, Michael Ashley. Gateways to Forever: The Story of the Science-fiction Magazines from 1970 to 1980. Liverpool University Press, 2007, p. 273: [56] (evolution of the magazine from a mere newsletter to fully professional magazine)
  • Gary Alan Fine. Shared Fantasy: Role Playing Games as Social Worlds. University of Chicago Press, 2002 (paperback release; original release 1983), pp. before 45: [57] (a classic example of WP:USEBYOTHERS)
I hope now it is clear that The Space Gamer suffices as a source for one small phrase in another article... Pavlor ( talk) 15:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Correct; authoritative in relation to the subject is not based on our independent evaluation of authority as nothing on WP is cruxed on original research. Authority can only be demonstrated by other RS and demonstration is required ("These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."). Chetsford ( talk) 16:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Rough consensus that sufficient sourcing (primarily in the form of published reviews) to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Douglas W. Hubbard

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

fails WP:GNG as far as I can find. —Мандичка YO 😜 05:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. –  numbermaniac 08:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. –  numbermaniac 08:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Per WP:G7, given author's comments at this AFD. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 17:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Alok Ramsisaria

Alok Ramsisaria (  | 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 and non notable. doesn't meet definition of child prodigy, not that that would be notableeither DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Agree. Let's delete the article. I thought a mention or two in a newspaper would suffice. WangDaNian ( talk) 06:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 22:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 22:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Merger can be discussed on talk page if necessary. So Why 18:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Adventures in Middle-earth

Adventures in Middle-earth (  | 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 on a puzzle and game book is sourced to amazon.com and the publisher's website. BEFORE fails to find any RS mentions. Fails GNG and WP:NBOOK. Chetsford ( talk) 01:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial ( talk) 09:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial ( talk) 09:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
With the Origins Award for Best RPG [60] this ought to be speedy keep. Newimpartial ( talk) 11:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Since you asked nicely, O High King: [61] and [62]. If the nom had asked I would not have included them, because he is rude and there is no obligation to post links - I am not that much better at Google than other people. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
"If the nom had asked I would not have included them, because he is rude and there is no obligation to post links" I'm sorry that I upset you, but I appreciate you providing these links which will help inform the !votes of other editors. Thanks! Chetsford ( talk) 18:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 00:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note that per policy, AfD is to be guided by the sources proven to exist, not only the ones cited in the article. Nevertheless, I have added the 2018 Origins Award and the two RS reviews I noted above into the actual article. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
What reliable sources? I see 4 dead links; 3 citations to Cubicle 7's web site; an award mention without commentary; and one review which may or may not be RS – I'll assume it is. This is not sufficient to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Jbh Talk 20:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Ill fix the dead review link I put in, but why wouldn't the Origins Award link contribute to Notability? It is one of the most prestigious, if not the most prestigious, award in the field. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
It may contribute but I do not see it as being enough to satisfy notability criteria in and of itself. I always have notability concerns about niche topics which do not either have some coverage outside of their niche or very significant coverage in it. Just about every RPG is going to get a couple of industry reviews and I tend to count such as 'trade press' per NORG ie the weight re notability is deeply discounted. I would be much happier to see an article or review which discussed the Origin Award ie an indication that the industry saw it worthy of commentary rather than mere mention. Jbh Talk 21:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_August_13&oldid=1142617077"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 12 August 14 August >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 06:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Pleasures (brand)

Pleasures (brand) (  | 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 do not think any of the sources here are sufficient for notability of this brand, nor can I find anything better. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I cleaned up the page a bit and added some additional references that I could find. 1q9x ( talk) 23:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 01:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Scale-Up Venture Capital

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

References point to routine coverage, write-ups that either don't mention the subject or only in passing, and sources which aren't considered reliable sources. A preliminary WP:BEFORE didn't appear to unearth much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
DBlogger1970 Hey there, I see you're new, so welcome! Fitting a category may mean the subject exists, but not that it's notable. I'm also gradually taking you up on your offer of nominating others in the category. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 01:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Silvia H. Allred

Silvia H. Allred (  | 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 non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to name checks and very short mentions. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources appears to exist. The article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability. See also: WP:SPIP:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– North America 1000 23:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 23:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete We don't have inherent notability standards for religious figures and, even if we did, the general presidency of the Relief Society of the LDS would certainly not meet those standards (unlike maybe the High Council). In the absence of that, this would have to meet the GNG which it does not. Chetsford ( talk) 23:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Sorry, you're right. I actually meant to say the Quorum of Twelve. Chetsford ( talk) 02:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The leadership of the LDS Church Relief Society is a top position within the Church, regularly addressing general conference, women's conferences and noted for their touring and participation in temple dedications. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – None of the above points qualifies notability as per Wikipedia's standards for notability. Subjects that the LDS church considers to be noteworthy do not get an automatic free pass for a Wikipedia article. Sorry, but one's own made-up, personal standards for notability such as the above do not align with Wikipedia notability guidelines. Per Wikipedia's notability standards, what is required is significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. Said necessary coverage does not appear to exist for this subject. North America 1000 05:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 21:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Nan Greene Hunter

Nan Greene Hunter (  | 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 subject that does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to passing mentions and some name checks. Not finding any significant coverage in independent sources to qualify an article. North America 1000 22:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Although tagged with WikiProject New Zealand, there is nothing of interest to the NZ project. NealeFamily ( talk) 00:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete did not hold a major leadership role in the Church, although she served as a missionary. And my searches found almost nothing in the way of sources. I did find "Eight distinguished BYU alumni honored for years of service," Deseret News; Salt Lake City, Utah [Salt Lake City, Utah]24 Apr 2009. It is just not enough. Searched for and failed to locate articles about the hymn she wrote, just a few videos of folks playing or singing it. Fails WP:GNG. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment A much better way to describe her postion in New Zealand is co-leader of a rotating group of about 150 missionaries at any given time. That is more than just "a missionary". Although mission presidents and their wives who co-preside with them are generally not notable for this. At least from the 1930s on when they began generally serving 3 year terms. A few people before that like John R. Moyle have their notability added to by being mission president, but generally they are notable for other things. Even Nephi Jensen would probably not have an article if it was not for his role in a state legislature. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the comments John. I took a look at the Category:American Mormon missionaries in New Zealand. From a quick sample of those mentioned, she does not seem to have the same level of merit needed to meet WP:BASIC. Most have notability from other fields. If I were taking it from a solely NZ perspective (that is assuming they had no other call to fame) Augustus Farnham and his fellow missionaries, who were first in the country, would meet the criteria based on their NZ mission being the first. Later ones would need to show something more notable than just being a missionary or in charge of a group of missionaries. Most religious organisations have people in that kind of role and they would not be notable in terms of Wiki's notability criteria unless there was something unique about them. NealeFamily ( talk) 10:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The notability argument really wrests on being a hymn writer, and weather Hunter's level of hymnwriting is notable. For what it is worth, about half the sourcing comes from the biography of her father-in-law, who clearly was notable, but that does not translate to her being notable, it does translate to her being sourceable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. Feel free to further discuss the article on its talk page, if desired. North America 1000 23:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Wreathgate

Wreathgate (  | 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 lead paragraph is one sided and misleading -- BOD -- 22:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

What's the particular instance of one-sidedness and what did you find misleading? Super-Mac ( talk) 22:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep If the lead paragraph is "one sided and misleading", why don't you just clean it up instead of deleting the whole article? Semi Hypercube ✎ 22:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I agree on the Keep, If you have a problem with text you could just change so you think it's a fair representation, not seen your issue yet though. This issue is growing in real time so updates and changes are going to become more and more necessary: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45170622 Super-Mac ( talk) 23:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

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

Hussein Al Ajami

The result was delete Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 19:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

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

We're not the yellow pages. Vexations ( talk) 22:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 22:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 22:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 06:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Blaze PR

Blaze PR (  | 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 fails WP:NCORP. Sources are generally non-reliable and not intellectually independent. Others fails to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Beyond that, the article is pretty purely advertising, and may be suitable for an appropriate speedy. Nosebagbear ( talk) 22:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus whether the subject passes WP:NPOL, and there is not enough discussion to see if the subject passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 09:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Uche Nwosu

Uche Nwosu (  | 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, doesn't fly WP:GNG Mahveotm ( talk) 14:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm ( talk) 14:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm ( talk) 14:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I interpret being the chief of staff and a commissioner to a state government as passing WP:NPOLITICIAN. Believe me, if you are not notable you won't be having major publishing houses covering you like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 all in the first page of Google search. I admire your work Mahveotm, but I feel like this nomination was a little too hasty. HandsomeBoy ( talk) 17:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Being the chief of staff and a commissioner to a state government does not passes WP:NPOLITICIAN, these are appointed position not elected ones. It even states that Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability. And mentioned by press houses (albeit not independently) because of a political ambition also does not passes WP:GNG. I'm not pro delete - I assume you already know, and did a WP:BEFORE before nominating. Mahveotm ( talk) 08:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Like the United States, Nigeria practice a federal system of government, which implies government powers being shared across federal, state and local authorities. According to WP:POLITICIAN Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature, what this means is that unelected state and federal appointees could be presumed notable depending on the significance of their office. The chief of staff of a state is a consistent respected authority present in all states in Nigeria, and solely responsible for the affairs of all staffs in a state. I consider it in the same class as the chief justice of a state in terms of the routine coverage received. He is not a local official, but a state official. He is also a former commissioner in the state.
When I have access to my PC, I'll reply you on GNG, but personally it isn't even necessary since I think NPOLITICIAN has been met. Even though my next statement sounds WP:CRYSTALBALL, I will still state it, when a sitting governor handpicks a candidate as his successor in eastern Nigeria, he usually have a 80% chance of winning, and that has led to many independent analysis by the media and questioning of their democracy by political analyst since he is related to the governor by marriage.
Let us see what other AFD commentators think. HandsomeBoy ( talk) 10:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Don't you have any pity for our eyes with that fluo text? - The Gnome ( talk) 20:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
haha..fixed it to what I initially wanted HandsomeBoy ( talk) 00:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
You shouldn't go around belittling people at AfD to achieve a point, you should also tell us HOW he passes GNG and what criterion of nPOLITICIAN was met as this is not a voting process. The above discussion with HandsomeBoy is an example of how to participate at an AfD. Mahveotm ( talk) 05:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment - I am not "belittling" anyone. I am addressing this poor nomination without regard for Wiki policy — some of which I pointed you to. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wiki policies especially WP:BEFORE—before nominating any article for AfD. Poor nominations wastes the community's time. Believe me, some editors who dislike poor nominations might have used stronger language than I have. I exercised restrain here. For your info, your condescending remarks may be viewed as a personal attack. I was commenting on this poor nomination but you turned it around and started commenting on me. Please read Wiki policies before bringing any more articles to Afd. Senegambianamestudy ( talk) 13:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Being chief of staff to a state-level politician is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL in and of itself, and the sourcing being cited here is not adequate to get him over WP:GNG. One of the three sources is primary, while another reads suspiciously more like PR bumf than journalism — and at least as of the time I'm writing this, the third takes me not to any content about the subject that I can even evaluate for its reliability or lack thereof, but to the confrontational splash page of a cyberhacker group. This is not the correct kind of sourcing to make a person notable because "media coverage exists", if what he's potentially notable for isn't an automatic guarantee of inclusion. Bearcat ( talk) 15:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
What about being a former state commissioner in addition to that? HandsomeBoy ( talk) 00:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Since his position is considered within the cabinet by the rules of Imo state, and members of a cabinet in a state in a federal republic are notable. True, we lack articles on most of them, and in fact on most cabinet ministers world-wide, possible at present, and especially if you go back to 1980, let alone 1950, but that is a different issue. I do have to point out that what US federal offices grant notability is not at all relevant to weather a specific office grants notability at the sub-national level in another country. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There's good agreement that this article needs a lot of editing. Perhaps major trimming, and/or refactoring with related articles. Possibly WP:TNT applies. There is, however, no consensus to delete it. The number of pageviews is not a factor in determining notability. On an administrative note, I'm over-riding User:Redditaddict69's relist, partly because WP:RELIST argues against a third relist, and partly because you shouldn't relist a discussion you participated in. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Appropriation (music)

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

Since the creation of this article other closely related articles such as Cultural_appropriation and Ethnomusicology have expanded to cover cultural appropriation in general and through music. There's been suggestions on the talk of the article page to delete it as this topic is already covered in other articles there should be no need to keep this poorly sourced article anymore. Other related articles like aforementioned are already covering the topic with better sources and can expanded in the future. MayMay7 ( talk) 20:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Red Phoenix talk 14:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This area obviously needs a good editor. There are three distinct concepts here: borrowing from other composers, borrowing from other genres, and borrowing from other cultures. IMHO, the last topic belongs in a non-existent cultural borrowing article, but unfortunately this is a redirect to cultural appropriation which I might characterize as a WP:POVFORK. Borrowing from other composers seems like a plausibly notable topic, but I'm out of my expertise to say for sure. The solution is editing, not deletion until someone demonstrates they're going to write something better. Daask ( talk) 19:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep – Yes, this article needs some serious reshaping, but I think the subject is notable enough and researched enough (never fails to hit 15 views daily, occasionally gets near 60) that it should be kept. I'm not opposed to a deletion then restarting immediately from scratch, but I am opposed to "salting the earth". Redditaddict 6 9 14:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third and final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict 6 9 14:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that the sources introduced during this AfD are sufficient to meet WP:GNG and/or WP:NCORP. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

FuelCell Energy

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

Previous AfD closed as "Delete" on 10 January 2014, but the article was never actually deleted recreated on 25 January 2014. Company has very little RS coverage beyond routine company profiles and stock updates. – dlthewave ☎ 12:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. –  numbermaniac 12:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. –  numbermaniac 12:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –  numbermaniac 12:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

*N/A per WP:CORPDEPTH. There are a couple of very local newspapers with non-financial information, but they focus on job creation etc, without covering actual company-oriented action etc details. All other sources that weren't covering routine info were non reliable/independent. Nosebagbear ( talk) 13:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Neutral/Pending while I consider refs Nosebagbear ( talk) 16:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 14:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Thanks for catching that. The article qualifies for G4 speedy deletion, but I thought I would give it a chance at AfD since it's been a few years. – dlthewave ☎ 15:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Yes, I had a similar view on CSDing, that given 4 years redoing the AfD seemed warranted Nosebagbear ( talk) 15:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Re-creation shortly after an AfD deletion without a review process ( WP:DRV, WP:AFC) is to be discouraged, but it is appropriate to reconsider this article here given the 4 years that have passed. The company in question continues to go about its business, as seen in the text and GreenTechMedia reference that I have added. However, while that GreenTechMedia article does show independence, for example in sceptical assessment of claims of profitability being just around the corner, I am not seeing enough to demonstrate attained WP:NCORP notability. AllyD ( talk) 14:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

    From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):

    There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.



    Analyst reports

    1. This 12 January 2018 article archive.is from StreetInsider.com notes:

      B.Riley/FBR upgraded FuelCell Energy (NASDAQ: FCEL) from Neutral to Buy with a price target of $3.50 (from $2.50).

      Analyst Carter Driscoll comments "After a difficult 1HFY17, we believe FCEL has turned a corner with an improving revenue mix, margin profile, and record backlog. We believe the company should be able to almost triple its operating portfolio from FY17 to FY18, moving from a portfolio of 11.2MW (generating electricity revenues under longterm PPAs) to over 30MW. We also believe the company should be able to garner another multiMW equipment sale and long-term service agreement with a second Korean power producer. Taken in conjunction with the 40MW of projects FCEL should develop for LIPA starting in FY19, a burgeoning relationship with Toyota for distributed hydrogen, and new fuel cell RFPs in CT, we see a more balanced revenue mix leading to higher and more sustainable margins and eventually EBITDA breakeven."

    2. This 9 February 2018 article archive.is from StreetInsider.com notes:

      Roth Capital upgraded FuelCell Energy (NASDAQ: FCEl) from Neutral to Buy, price target $4.00 (from $2.00).

      Analyst Craig Irwin cites the remediation of the 30% investment Tax Credit which he expects will help broadly improve project economics which should bring in new bookings momentum.

    3. This 1 December 2016 article archive.is from StreetInsider.com notes:

      FBR Capital reiterated a Market Perform rating on FuelCell Energy (NASDAQ: FCEL), and cut the price target to $2.50 (from $3.00), after recent setbacks cause the company to lower its F4Q16 revenue guidance. FCEL guided F4Q16 revenue to $23M–$25M, lower than consensus forecasts. Part of the reduction was from not winning any clean energy awards and part from the reclassification of a fuel cell plant constructed for Pfizer that was originally expected to be sold but will be accounted for as a sales leaseback transaction.

      Analyst Carter Driscoll commented, "This morning, December 1, FCEL lowered its F4Q16 revenue guidance after its recent setbacks regarding awards from certain clean energy RFPs. The company is cutting head count to lower its cost structure to better align production levels with its order book, cutting the annual production rate to 25 MW from 50 MW. FCEL is reducing head count by approximately 17%, or 96 positions, primarily in direct manufacturing but also some administrative positions, and taking a $3M charge in FY17, 50% of which is expected to be in cash severance costs. Additionally, the company hopes to lower operating costs and save $6M in annual opex. We believe these steps are the appropriate responses to the loss of expected awards in the aforementioned clean energy RFPs. Until we have more clarity that the reduced production levels are truly temporary in nature, we are taking a more conservative outlook for fuel cell power generation aimed at utility-scale projects and have lowered our revenue estimates and price target to $2.50 from $3.00."

    4. This 26 October 2016 article archive.is from StreetInsider.com notes:

      FBR Capital downgraded FuelCell Energy (NASDAQ: FCEL) from Outperform to Market Perform with a price target of $5.50 (from $9.00).

      Analyst Carter Driscoll commented, "Yesterday, FCEL disclosed that it did not win approval to move into contract negotiations for the 63.3 MW project located at Beacon Falls, CT. Management disclosed that there was no explanation provided as to why the project was not selected. There were several positive characteristics that appeared to position the project for success. We suspect, but have not yet been able to verify, that economics may have played a part as the award winners for the tri-state clean energy RFPs were wind and solar projects, which typically have a lower generation cost. Regardless, the loss of the project negatively impacts our FY17 revenue and margin forecasts and we have lowered estimates as a result. While we believe there are still some near-term catalysts, we are less confident in the timing of potential awards and believe the stock is in a "show-me" mode. We are stepping to the sidelines, removing FCEL as our Alpha Generator pick, cutting our price target to $5.50 from $9, and lowering our rating to Market Perform from Outperform."

    5. This 3 October 2017 article archive.is from The Fly notes:

      Oppenheimer analyst Colin Rusch started FuelCell rating and a $4 price target, calling the company a "clear leader" in stationary fuel cell applications that he believes can achieve positive operational cash flow in the next 12-18 months.

    https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NASDAQ/FCEL/price-target/ WebCite contains a list of analyst reports available under a paywall:

    Date Brokerage Action Rating Price Target Impact on Share Price Details
    6/8/2018 B. Riley Set Price Target Buy $4.00 Low Paywall link
    2/9/2018 Roth Capital Upgrade Neutral ➝ Buy $2.00 ➝ $4.00 High Paywall link
    1/11/2018 Cowen Set Price Target Buy $3.00 High Paywall link
    10/4/2017 CIBC Initiated Coverage Outperform ➝ Outperform $4.00 High Paywall link
    10/4/2017 Oppenheimer Initiated Coverage Outperform $4.00 ➝ $4.00 High Paywall link
    9/5/2017 FBR & Co Reiterated Rating Hold High Paywall link
    8/15/2017 Raymond James Initiated Coverage Market Perform Medium Paywall link
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow FuelCell Energy to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 04:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: although this company is listed, it's a micro-cap. With revenues of $185M, it's too insignificant to have generated significant coverage, resulting in a promotional article, as in:
"The company has been tapped by the Office of Naval Research to provide assistance on the Large Displacement Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (LDUUV) program"!
The project would not be significantly improved by the retention of this article. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP on the balance of things. K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: That a company is a micro-cap with revenues of $185 million does not mean that "it's too insignificant to have generated significant coverage". From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#No inherent notability:

    smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products, though articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable per WP:NOTADVERTISING.

    This company has received significant coverage in analyst reports.

    Here is even more coverage:

    1. Eisler, Matthew N. (2018-05-29). "Fuel Cells Finally Find a Killer App: Carbon Capture". IEEE Spectrum. Archived from the original on 2018-08-12. Retrieved 2018-08-12.

      This is an extensive profile of FuelCell Energy.

      The article notes:

      One of the salient facts about advanced power sources is that new products typically take decades to enter the marketplace. As more than one observer has noted, there is no Moore’s Law for batteries. Sustained government support is thus crucial. With help from the U.S. Department of Energy, FuelCell Energy was able to focus on the thankless task of improving the efficiency, cost, and durability of its molten carbonate fuel cells. After years of research and development, the company demonstrated a 2-megawatt plant in Santa Clara, Calif., which operated from 1996 to 1997. In 2003, FuelCell Energy shipped its first commercial unit. To date, it has installed several hundred megawatts of capacity in 50 locations around the world, most notably a 59-MW combined heat-and-power plant in South Korea. Today, the company is the leading provider of molten carbonate technology.

      ...

      The energy crisis and environmental movement of the 1970s brought renewed interest in all kinds of clean power, including the carbonate fuel cell. It was in this ferment that FuelCell Energy, then known as Energy Research Corp., was founded. “What we thought made the most sense was a power generation system that could run on pipeline-volume natural gas, and high-temperature fuel cells like carbonate did that,” Leo says.

    2. Wald, Matthew L. (2014-12-14). "Capturing Carbon as a Byproduct of Running a Fuel Cell". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2018-08-12. Retrieved 2018-08-12.

      The article notes:

      As [fuel cell] is piped between the stages, the gas is at 70 percent purity, and most of the other 30 percent is innocuous steam. So the engineers at the company that built the installation, FuelCell Energy, are pulling off a chemical bait-and-switch.

      ...

      In FuelCell’s design, a coal plant adds a fuel cell unit next to its smokestack, and the fuel cell soaks up the carbon dioxide and adds power to overall output. Some energy is used — the demonstration unit here would produce eight kilowatts, enough for a midsize commercial air-conditioner, but in carbon capture mode makes only about six kilowatts — but the loss is more manageable than drawing energy from the coal plant for conventional carbon capture.

      And if the Environmental Protection Agency follows through on its intent to require existing coal plants to shrink their carbon output, the company’s fuel cells could do the job in two ways, by capturing some carbon and by raising the electricity output over which the remaining carbon dioxide is spread.

      ...

      FuelCell energy is not alone in looking for a more energy-efficient way to grab carbon dioxide; other ideas are percolating.

    3. Schwartz, John (2016-05-05). "Exxon Mobil Backs FuelCell Effort to Advance Carbon Capture Technology". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2018-08-12. Retrieved 2018-08-12.

      The article notes:

      For years, FuelCell Energy has been considered a company to watch. Its technology promised to help economically reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, which could help combat climate change. The Danbury, Conn., company might be able to make a difference, experts said, if only it had a partner with really deep pockets.

      Now it has one.

      In an agreement announced on Thursday, Exxon Mobil said it had tightened an existing relationship with FuelCell in hopes of taking the technology from the lab to the market.

      ...

      FuelCell Energy’s products can also strip 70 percent of the smog-producing oxides of nitrogen from the exhaust of coal-burning power plants.

    Cunard ( talk) 01:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete In the past, Cunard has located good analyst reports. But the ones above are not "analyst reports" but comments on stock price. An analyst report provides in-depth analysis on the company. Also, the links to the articles above are not intellectually independent as per WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 20:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Analyst reports always both comment on the estimated stock price and provide in-depth analysis of the company. They do not merely comment on the price because that would not be useful to their customers who pay a lot to purchase the analyst reports.

    The quotes I presented here are only snippets from analyst reports that are under a paywall. To get the analyst reports' in-depth analysis of the company, we would need the paywall copies, which I do not have.

    There is analysis of the company in the snippets presented here. For example, the FBR Capital Markets analyst report as summarized by another source says "Part of the reduction [in price target] was from not winning any clean energy awards and part from the reclassification of a fuel cell plant constructed for Pfizer that was originally expected to be sold but will be accounted for as a sales leaseback transaction."

    And another report provides analysis of the company, saying, "Yesterday, FCEL disclosed that it did not win approval to move into contract negotiations for the 63.3 MW project located at Beacon Falls, CT. Management disclosed that there was no explanation provided as to why the project was not selected. There were several positive characteristics that appeared to position the project for success. We suspect, but have not yet been able to verify, that economics may have played a part as the award winners for the tri-state clean energy RFPs were wind and solar projects, which typically have a lower generation cost. Regardless, the loss of the project negatively impacts our FY17 revenue and margin forecasts and we have lowered estimates as a result."

    Cunard ( talk) 20:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Here is more information from another source, Smarter Analyst, about the analyst reports (bolding added to emphasize some of the analysis):
    1. This 7 June 2018 article WebCite from Smarter Analyst notes:

      Oppenheimer analyst Colin Rusch maintained a Buy rating on Fuelcell Energy (NASDAQ: FCEL) yesterday and set a price target of $4. The company’s shares closed yesterday at $1.74.

      Rusch wrote: “FCEL posted solid revenue but disappointing GM on product and generation revenue. We expect both to recover as revenue grows, especially as the company finishes liquidating high cost inventory. We continue to believe FCEL has a clear path to cash flow breakeven as it grows product sales to Korea and expands its owned project portfolio. We are encouraged by Korean customer signals, project wins in the US, and progress on securing project financing. We would not be surprised to see the company to be able to announce new orders in Korea over the coming months as it moves forward building the US portfolio. We remain constructive on the shares as we believe concerns about sustainable growth and cash burn are overblown.”

      This provides extensive analysis of the company.
    2. This 11 June 2018 article WebCite from Smarter Analyst notes:

      B.Riley FBR analyst Carter Driscoll maintained a Buy rating on Fuelcell Energy (NASDAQ: FCEL) on June 8 and set a price target of $3.50. The company’s shares closed on Friday at $1.75.

      Driscoll wrote: “CT clean energy awards the next catalyst. FuelCell Energy (FCEL) delivered F2Q18 revenues and EPS below our estimates, largely from the timing of additions to its power generation portfolio and a $0.4M charge to COGS for abandoning a small project no longer deemed economically viable. FCEL’s record backlog of $1.6B and recent ITC extension support the transition to building its power generation portfolio, which remains on track to grow almost 3X to reach over 30 MW (generating electricity revenues under long-term PPAs) by FYE18. Management detailed the financing needs and economics of a theoretical $40M project (we estimate 12 MW) that would utilize project debt for construction and FCEL’s working capital position and deliver ~40% EBITDA margins.”

    3. This 10 June 2016 article archive.is from Smarter Analyst notes:

      In a research report released today, FBR analyst Carter Driscoll reiterated an Outperform rating on shares of FuelCell Energy Inc (NASDAQ:FCEL), with a price target of $9.00, after the company missed fiscal second-quarter forecasts on lower revenue, and various one-time expenses. ...

      Driscoll wrote, “We are more cautious, near term, as project awards are slower to materialize, but we believe they will come. Weak F2Q16 results partly reflect the ongoing transition to more sale/leaseback projects, low-margin component kit sales to POSCO (which end in F4Q16), $2M in nonrecurring charges for rectifying past service contracts (hurt service margins, but should be over), and higher-than-expected product investments. Due to slower-than-expected awards from multiple RFPs that FCEL bid into in F1H16, the company cut FY16 guidance, from $170M–$210M, to $140M– $170M. We view this as a timing problem, not a demand issue.”

      “With 125MW worth of competitive bids over multiple potential projects, there is no shortage of demand; we believe FCEL stands to win at least a substantial portion of them. But the timing of awards appears tilted towards the latter part of FY16 rather than towards the current quarter,” the analyst continued.

    Cunard ( talk) 20:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would strongly urge participants to keep their comments to a reasonable size to simplify the closing editor's task.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 20:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep Cunard's sources and analysis do demonstrate that the article passes WP:GNG. Hzh ( talk) 22:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 18:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arguments for deleting this article centre on the subject's supposed lack of significance, concerns over promotionalism, and the amateur and fairly out-of-the-blue nature of this fight. Keep !votes hinge on the coverage of this subject in reliable sources. These sources are not of the sort that can be dismissed out of hand, but those arguing for deletion have not convincingly demonstrated why they should not count towards meeting WP:GNG; indeed there generally isn't much engagement with the sources among the "delete" !votes. As such, no outcome other than keeping this is possible here. Vanamonde ( talk) 07:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

KSI vs Logan Paul

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KSI vs. Joe Weller. A boxing match between two Youtubers, with insufficient non-promotional coverage. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 15:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse ( talk) 15:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. I guess my links just prove the noms point. "I also note the sources describe this as 'deeply embarrassing' and 'may be scrapped'." Not much shows that the fight is notable, if anything at all. Abequinn14 ( talk) 08:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • delete - I can see how this could provide some pop interest, but the boxers aren't professional (I'm aware this is also true at the Olympics). The first match wasn't notable, either. Even if kept, I'm not sure the title of the article is suitible. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 13:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - sufficient sources provided discussing the fight to pass GNG. The point that the fight is described as "deeply embarrassing" is irrelevant; GNG only requires coverage, not positivity. OZOO (t) (c) 10:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep easily more than enough coverage to pass the general notability guidelines. 207.164.152.162 ( talk)
  • Keep - News sources are talking about the fight in the mainstream media and as such outlets are covering the fight, it would only be fair to suggest keeping the page up. See here, here, and finally, here. -- Pokkeballs17 ( talk), 12:55, 11 August 2018, (GMT)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 22:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 22:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep due to recent involvement between the two that has attracted millions of viewers worth of attention on KSI's channel, Logan Paul's channel, other Celeb channels (e.g. PewDiePie) in addition to countless YouTube news channels and even some Mainstream Media. Currently, this page reaches 2,500 daily views without fail (possibly due to deletion nomination, but still is a ton for a deletion nomination page–those usually just get 100 daily) and sometimes passes 3,000 making it relevant enough to keep. This definitely needs a 2nd deletion nomination after the drama between the two dies down someday and this page becomes irrelevant. Redditaddict69 (click here if I screwed up stuff again) (edits) 02:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

*Keep Mainstream media coverage aswell as thousands of tickets being sold at one of the UK's largest arenas. [1] User:TheMasterGuru

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 19:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ L3X1: did you mean "Delete - fails the GNG", or "Keep - meets the GNG"? power~enwiki ( π, ν) 00:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Power~enwiki: yes. FBDB
Regards, SshibumXZ ( Talk) ( Contributions). 01:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Sorry all, I miswrote. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ RoySmith: WP:10YT isn't a reason to delete, if anything, it seems a reason to keep for the time being and see how coverage develops after the event: "Just wait and see...Editors writing today do not have a historical perspective on today's events, and should not pretend to have a crystal ball." The essay 10YT is a part of even cautions against using it as a reason for deletion, from the first section of WP:RECENTISM: "Over-use of recent material does not by itself mean that an article should be deleted...". The essay is about how to cover notable recent events, not determining the notability of an event. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 21:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep — Struck previous comment for this updated one. Mainstream media coverage (from sources such as BBC and Sky News) as well as thousands of tickets being sold at one of the UK's largest arenas. Also expecting this fight to break multiple armature boxing ticket sales (which are expected to sell out the venue with 21,000 ticket sales [2]) and views and maybe even break boxing pay-per-view numbers. In addition, multiple professional boxing personalities are involved and have taken interest. In addition to the over 50,000 page views this page has received in the past week and promises to be much higher come fight night. More than enough to pass GNG. [3] [4] TheMasterGuru ( talk) 15:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-43458905
  2. ^ https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ksi-vs-logan-paul-fight-youtube-white-collar-boxing-history-a8504841.html
  3. ^ https://news.sky.com/story/youtubers-logan-paul-and-ksi-confirm-boxing-showdown-in-manchester-11297121
  4. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/newsbeat-45284977/ksi-v-logan-paul-boxing-match-what-do-real-fighters-think-about-it
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. Deor ( talk) 22:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Mike Besser

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

Nonnotable doctor Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. So Why 19:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Anger Room

Anger Room (  | 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 is an obvious attempt at advertising with little other justification for its existence. Should have been speedily deleted when created. Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. ( talk) 00:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. the reverences ae either minor or thesort of human interest about unsusual events. This isn't as unsusual as it sounds, actually, andusing the genetal name for a particular business is undue promotionalism . DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: a directory listing for a nn company. Fails WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep - This has generated two articles in New York Times, and one in Le Monde. The further reading section I just added shows plenty of independent coverage. Daask ( talk) 19:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'm a bit concerned that we're seeing this, this, this, and this as trivial coverage. I'm not convinced that the content needs to be in this particular page; it could be a page about the phenomenon, with a section covering this particular instance; and it could possibly use a rename to addrss the "title is promotional" concern brought up by DGG; but this meets GNG quite comfortably, in my book. Vanamonde ( talk) 07:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as it has significant coverage by multiple reliable sources, according to WP:CORPDEPTH. I would add though, that, listing a bunch of sources at the bottom of the article does not help making the article itself better. Those sources can be used, with care, in the article, thereby expanding it and making it more interesting. That work will also help the AFD process. -- 1l2l3k ( talk) 13:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per all keep comments, but this seriously needs more information. I'm not opposed to a second nomination in one to two months if this isn't "revamped" because it does seem somewhat like advertising at the moment. If the NYT article is mentioned, that'll certainly help with credibility. Redditaddict 6 9 14:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. So Why 19:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Batul Soltani

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

Claim made for being an Iranian politician, but all I could find was this source that describes her as a MOIS employee. Devotes herself to writing against political opposition group MEK, which seems to be a tactical effort to discredit political opposition groups. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 18:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 20:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Ben Gluck

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

Although Ben Gluck has co-directed animated films - There is nothing notable about him. There are no interviews/articles about him that I can find (only one's he's done about the film Alpha and Omega). The reason this article has no sources is because there are none. Wikipedia is a combination of knowledge that has been published; unfortunately this article has been written as first hand research and not based on published sources - Therefore there is no way to verify the information provided in this article. ツ Stacey ( talk) 18:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 20:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Digital Feudalism

Digital Feudalism (  | 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 concept created by a couple of people with no independent sourcing about it. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and WP:GNG is not met Joseph 2302 ( talk) 17:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete From what I can see, it doesn't appear that this meets WP:NEO. Per the guideline: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term." Most of the results that I see are links back to the original paper in which the authors coined the term (and the rest don't look like reliable sources), so the notability guideline is not met. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 18:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America 1000 00:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Armat

Armat (  | 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 and not enough coverage. Harut111 ( talk) 19:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Harut111 ( talk) 19:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Harut111 ( talk) 19:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 20:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 15:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 17:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 13:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Wass Stevens

Wass Stevens (  | 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 lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails WP:ENT. reddogsix ( talk) 23:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Consensus is that the coverage is not sufficient to establish notability. Hut 8.5 21:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Indygo Arscott

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

WP:BLP of an activist whose claims of notability are not properly referenced as getting them over WP:GNG. Of the eight footnotes here, three are primary sources that cannot support notability -- Facebook, Twitter and a piece in which they're the bylined author of content about themself -- while four of the other five are just glancing namechecks of their existence as a giver of soundbite in articles about other things, and the last tangentially verifies the existence of an event while completely failing to mention the subject's name at all in conjunction with it. This is not how you source an activist as notable enough for an encyclopedia article -- they have to be the subject of the sources, not the author of their own sources or a person whose name gets briefly mentioned in coverage about other subjects. Bearcat ( talk) 04:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: Although there are many primary sources, I do believe that the news articles written about the subject provide some notability as the events were fairly recent (one rally was hosted by the subject themselves) and there could be more news coverage in the near future as the subject's activism develops, especially after the Doug Ford rally held approximately two weeks ago. GeorgeMHall ( talk) 18:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
We keep or delete articles based on what's already true today, not based on WP:CRYSTAL predictions about how much more notable the person might become in the future. The sources which actually count as reliable source media coverage here aren't about Indygo Arscott, but merely mention their name in the process of being about something else, which is not how you source the notability of an activist. And it's also necessary to point out that you're the page's creator, and thus not an objective observer of whether the sourcing here is enough or not — it doesn't mean you're not allowed to comment at all, I assure you, but it does need to be stated on the record. Bearcat ( talk) 21:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 02:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 02:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 02:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma msg 16:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete all. Hut 8.5 21:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Azam Khan (cricketer, born 1998)

Azam Khan (cricketer, born 1998) (  | 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 per the reason stated, below:

Mohammad Arif (cricketer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mohammad Taha (cricketer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mushtaq Ahmed Kalhoro (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable cricketers. Have not played in a match that meets WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

And to be clear, if it is decided they are different players, then Delete Mustaq Ahmed Kalhoro too, as he fails NCRIC and does not have enough WP:RS / WP:SECONDARY coverage to pass WP:GNG. Spike 'em ( talk) 17:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Thanks Spike. I too spotted that Mushtaq Ahmed has a profile on CI (with FC matches), but I'm not able to verify if it's one and the same. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I've deleted some text / reference on the Mohammad Taha article, as it was for a different (Indian) player with the same name. Spike 'em ( talk) 17:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
No need to bring that up given this situation. This is a clear case of brightline notability standards. And once again I ask, how? Funny how people only finish that thought halfway through without being willing to suggest new universally applicable brightline requirements. "A whole season" is unenforceable. "A few" is woolly and pointless. Wanna suggest two, five, ten, one hundred? This isn't the place to be suggesting new brightline criteria. It's been 14 years. Give it a go. In the appropriate place(s). Bobo . 09:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - simply waste of time, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no evidence of subjects meeting WP:GNG, let alone the very generous subject-specific notability guideline. Hack ( talk) 15:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the first three certainly. Mushtaq Ahmed Kalhoro is also a likely delete for now - I can find just the article that's at the foot of the article for now and nothing else. There is an argument that this player is likely to be notable on the grounds that non-English language sources are very likely to exist along the same lines. On the grounds that there's just the one article I can find, that's not the multiple, independent, in depth sources required by WP:GNG so I think I tend towards delete for him as well - although I would be happy with the article being kept if someone can demonstrate the likelihood of non-English language sources. The same argument has certainly been used to keep articles in the past. The others I find nothing verifiable to demonstrate that they come close to meeting GNG. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 12:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. I also made efforts to find sources, and if it's this hard, I don't think they're worth it. Daask ( talk) 19:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( talk) 08:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

CardLife

CardLife (  | 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 video game. I'm not seeing significant coverage as of yet. Strikerforce Talk 16:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Yup, there is a distinct lack of coverage. -- Izno ( talk) 23:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • This was left on my talk page, verbatim. I submit it for others to review in this context. -- Izno ( talk) 14:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

    Hi Izno, I have added some new content to the CardLife page in relation to your feedback. The CardLife Page now features information about its creators Freejam Games. I've also added a new Reception category which shows that CardLife has had over 5 million views from prominent YouTube channels with a big following like PaulSoaresJnr (1.5 million subscribers), GrayStillPlays (663k subscribers) and others. I believe this will be enough for you to be satisfied that CardLife is notable enough to be featured on Wikipedia, but I obviously understand if you disagree. Thanks for taking a look and moderating the page. It is very early for CardLife in terms of press coverage, but on YouTube it's already a notable game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gribb85 ( talk • contribs) 14:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 17:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 17:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( talk) 08:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

DomainTools

DomainTools (  | 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 reliable sources found to verify notability Finnishela ( talk) 16:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I find User:Daask's arguments particularly unpersuasive. He says, I can't find an independent source describing their work at all, yet wants to keep the article. That is clearly in contradiction to WP:V and WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Longfin (company)

Longfin (company) (  | 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 corporation per WP:NCORP. Only event includes an incident of alleged securities fraud which does not qualify a standalone article for a corporation. Gotitbro ( talk) 15:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Although it is quoted on Nasdaq, I also cannot find any analyst reports discussing this company in depth. On that basis, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 17:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I see no indication that this company is notable for what it does. In fact, I can't find an independent source describing their work at all. However, there is ongoing coverage of this company for its stock value, criminal investigations, and as an exemplar of bitcoin investment bubbles. I expect it will be discussed in historical works on that last point, although that's WP:CRYSTALBALL. You can decide whether this rationale is compelling. Daask ( talk) 21:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep – Coverage of company makes it notable per User:Daask. Redditaddict 6 9 15:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Elon Musk#Tham Luang cave rescue. Vanamonde ( talk) 08:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Elon Musk's submarine

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

Uneeded for its own article, no use in the actual rescue as well as no recorded use. Device was deemed impractical by official as well. ⠀TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁS⠀ TALK⠀ 15:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

There's emerging consensus both at Elon Musk and Tham Luang cave rescue that the amount of detail provided by all the available reliable sources has too much WP:WEIGHT for either article. A WP:SPLIT makes more sense in these conditions. Diego ( talk) 21:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I was originally thinking merge, but I believe it has more than enough coverage to satisfy the main branch of notability. Then it has plenty of content to warrant a CONTENTFORK. Coverage also extended on long enough to satisfy WP:SUSTAINED - Vox and Hackaday just to give a couple (there's plenty if you do a time-focused search). The sub was a sufficiently big part of the event, regardless of actual lack of usage, to achieve notability. Nosebagbear ( talk) 17:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:GNG and WP:WHENSPLIT. I started the article mainly with content that had been removed from Tham Luang cave rescue for being too detailed for that article, and because there were too many sources covering the development of this technological implement with a level of detail that was notable and in-depth, but not directly related to the rescue. There have been many articles dedicated both to the technological aspects of the device and its viability as submarine rescue equipment, as well as about the incident with its promoter and its angle as a publicity stunt, which could be used to further expand the topic with details gathered from independent secondary analysis. (Also, since when "it's not in use" has been a criterion for determining whether a topic is notable?) Diego ( talk) 21:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The fact that the said submarine had no use and no foreseen need shows that the topic would not pass WP:SUSTAINED. "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability". ⠀TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁS⠀ TALK⠀ 23:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
While the length of time needed for sustained to apply is always one for dispute, I feel the coverage indicated (and available) is sufficient to show it was a brief news flurry. It doesn't have to be a long running coverage subject, just not brief. Nosebagbear ( talk) 23:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
When news media are dedicating feature-length analysis pieces one month after the incident, that is not a short burst. Diego ( talk) 05:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
That's an short opinion piece surrounding Musk's behavior, not necessarily the submarine. ⠀TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁS⠀ TALK⠀ 13:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
There are plenty more mentioning the submarine where this one came from during the last week, you just need to look; this shows that its coverage in media was not just a brief burst never to be mentioned again, but that it has gained their sustained attention. Anyway, Musk's behavior regarding the submarine is part of the topic of this article. Diego ( talk) 14:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
All of those articles barely mention the submarine. Also, in all of them, the submarine is not nearly the main focus. ⠀TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁS⠀ TALK⠀ 14:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Whatever. Notability is about having enough independent content to write an article for a topic in a neutral way, and I believe this article is proof that press coverage satisfies that criterion. Diego ( talk) 08:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now; editorially, it's a useful article-split and it's unclear whether it will be the subject of lasting coverage at this time. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 00:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as per Diego MoyaHypercube. It's fun to laugh at Musk, but that's not what Wikipedia is for, and the whole submarine incident seems more like one episode in the slow decline of a living figure rather than a notable object in and of itself. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 01:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 01:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 01:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 01:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Already overwhelms the Elon Musk article as a section. This insignificant event has zero WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. wumbolo ^^^ 08:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
    • This is from yesterday. Diego ( talk) 13:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
      • @ Diego Moya: one sentence plus one quote? wumbolo ^^^ 13:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
        • And it appears that the sentence boils down to, "after this, I have a lower opinion of Musk," which points back to my previous argument that this is best viewed as an episode in the decline of Elon Musk rather than an independent article. Simonm223 ( talk) 13:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
          • That's non-zero for you. And I count four paragraphs retelling the pod design, the "pedo" incident, and four sentences of opinions from Mr Acton (which is from one source, more than one month after the event; it doesn't mean there aren't others).
          Reading the WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE policy above, I see it matching "If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance" more closely than "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion". Diego ( talk) 14:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
          • OK, but there's also a WP:DUE issue at play here. The salacious nature of Musks's tweets shouldn't lead to us over-stating the significance of this event. The only significance of the submarine is that Elon Musk was the person who tried it. If it was some random nobody, it'd never have even made the news. Should we also have an article about Musk and Grimes' feud with Azealia Banks? Simonm223 ( talk) 14:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
            • WP:DUE is for placing content within an article dedicated to a different topic, no? Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, and having an article or not depends on the WP:Notability of the (sub)topic itself, not its relation to other topics. WP:SPLIT recommends having a stand-alone article if there's enough references providing material that is too much weight for the article from which it came from. So WP:DUE would be a good argument for not merging it back into Elon Musk, not to delete Elon Musk's submarine. Diego ( talk) 14:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
              • Yeah, but that still doesn't speak to any independent notability. How is this object relevant to anything except that it was a Musk PR stunt? I mean it wasn't asked for by anyone, didn't rescue anyone. It's a non-notable object except in that it led to Musk saying unfortunate and slanderous things on Twitter about a person who actually did rescue people. Its notability is only because of Musk. It belongs merged into his article, not as a separate article. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Elon Musk#Tham Luang cave rescue. The event is not independently notable of Musk and it does not satisfy WP:SUSTAINED. There is consensus at Talk:Tham_Luang_cave_rescue#Survey that the submarine was a minor event compared to the entire rescue; devoting an entire article to it would be undue. A similar example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saman Kunan, which was closed in favour of a merge. In this case, I suggest merging it to Elon Musk because the submarine and subsequent tweets attracted attention primarily because of Musk. This is a minor social media incident which got blown over and then coverage gradually decreases. Given our BLP policies which advise against devoting too much space to minor events, I think a couple of sentences in Elon Musk should be good enough to cover it.-- DreamLinker ( talk) 18:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
    The amount of BLP content is similar to that already placed at Elon Musk. The rest of the article is not related to BLP; they are technical descriptions about the device and its viability, which satisfy WP:Notability, as it received attention on its own. Those wouldn't fit at Musk's article, yet are due weight for an article about the submarine itself. Diego ( talk) 09:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
How are the proposed technical capabilities of a billionaire's failed PR stunt relevant independent of the billionaire? Simonm223 ( talk) 11:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
We don't need it to be independent, we need it to be "notable" on its own, i.e. written in detail by independent reliable sources. Then we can write a WP:SUMMARY section in Musk's page, and a more detailed stand-alone article. Why would we want to have only the first, and lose some part of the reliably sourced descriptive content that is already written, when there's room to have both? Diego ( talk) 11:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
But that's the crux. Notability is only there vis its position as a PR stunt of Elon Musk. It's all inherited. There's nothing to this story except a stupid twitter feud that a rich jerk decided to engage in and a length of tube. Simonm223 ( talk) 11:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Please answer this question: if a reader thought "I want to check Wikipedia to learn what happened with that Musk submarine, how it was made, and whether it could have really worked" (all of these, things that the media have cared about), where would you send them, and how much information they would get? I mean, without having to check the linked references to read the whole articles by themselves. Diego ( talk) 11:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
That question doesn't speak to WP:GNG which is what concerns us here. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Pardon me for being harsh, but are you saying that you're more concerned with following guidelines than providing information to readers? My read of the GNG is that, if there's enough information to write a detailed and neutral short article, you have passed it, because GNG basically asks "is there enough content to write a short, detailed, neutral article?" Diego ( talk) 12:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
It's undue coverage of an irrelevant PR stunt with no independent notability from the person who proposed it. Answer this question, if Julie Payette had proposed making a submarine in these circumstances, would anybody care? And yet, she's if anything far more qualified for this sort of work than everybody's favourite battery hype man. The only relevance of this object is the person who proposed it. It's not independently notable. It doesn't have significant sustained coverage and a year from now, Elon Musk will be the only person who cares about it. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I don't know, would have all the press covered it in depth for a week and still mention it one month later as an example every time they talk about her erratic behavior? Because that has totally happened with Musk. Also, you really should explain how the WP:DUE policy and WP:NOTINHERITED essay apply to having a stand-alone article, because I don't see anything in them about a topic that has GNG-level sourcing to it. DUE in particular seems to warn against the merge to the Musk article that you propose. Diego ( talk) 12:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Naw, I've said my piece, and barring any new information I am not changing my !vote which I believe to be justified by policy. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
As you wish, but I think you seem to confound "it's covered with undue weight within another subject" and "it's not important". Those are different things, and only the first is policy. Diego ( talk) 12:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge back into the main article, per arguments by Diego Moya et al. I can't add much more. It's undue weight right now, and of minor importance, yet would add context and citations to the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian ( talk • contribs)
  • Merge - Not sure why this needs a seperate article, No notability to warrant a seperate article. – Davey2010 Talk 21:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep First off, I can imagine this article being discussed for several reasons, namely 1) the behavior of wealthy benefactors like Musk, 2) time-constrained prototyping and manufacturing, 3) rescue attempts. Multiple reasons of interest makes a separate article more viable in my opinion, apart from any guidelines. Daask ( talk) 21:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Having an entire article on this topic seems very much like Wikipedia:Recentism. If there's still significant news coverage a year from now, I'll certainly reconsider! Λυδ α cιτγ 03:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply
That seems like an absurdly high bar to cover - 1 month is usually viewed as more than sufficient in these AfDs as regards LASTING and RECENTISM. If that bar was required to be met on top of any other notability requirements, almost no events, criminals, olympic athletes etc would warrant coverage. Nosebagbear ( talk) 07:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Wheeling Jesuit University. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Appalachian Institute

Appalachian Institute (  | 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, promo largely based on social media and the own website. Most other hits I found were of the type "we have an event" or "mrs/mr X is working here". Part of Wheeling Jesuit University with no independent notability. The Banner  talk 15:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of chess variants. This seems to be the clear consensus. (non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 02:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Troy (chess variant)

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

Mentioned in a specialist encylopedia for chess variants, but no other sources it seems. Does not pass the WP:GNG for inclusion in Wikipedia (a general encylopedia). It's not viable for every one of the thousands of entries in The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants to be given an independent article. Note that The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants and The Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants are effectively editions 1 and 2 of the same publication. It can be found online at [1]. Troy is on page 206. Suggest redirection to List of chess variants rather than actual deletion. LukeSurl t c 15:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 20:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Korean drama television series in Pakistan

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Since television shows from any country can be broadcast in any other country, this is not a thing it's valuable or useful for an encyclopedia to maintain a list of — there are approximately 180 countries in the world whose television channels both produce their own television series and purchase rebroadcast rights to television series from other countries, giving us the duty to create and maintain around 32,000 such lists, for every possible combination of originating and purchasing country, if this were a thing we did. This is not useful or encyclopedic content, and Korean series airing in Pakistan don't occupy some unique sphere of special notability unmatched by any other combination of countries. Bearcat ( talk) 14:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Gran Hermano (Spain) All Stars 2. (non-admin closure) Daask ( talk) 21:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

La Revuelta (season 1)

AfDs for this article:
La Revuelta (season 1) (  | 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 fails to meet WP:GNG. I tried searching and couldn't find a mention of it in the first few pages of a google search. I tried searching "La Revuelta" in es.wiki, with no mention of it there either. This article could arguably be deleted based on WP:A3 and WP:V, as the 2 sentence lead has 3 pieces of information which none can be verified if correct. The rest of the article is blanked sections (including an empty pseudo-infobox). Also please note, that the only External link there, is for the Gran Hermano site, which does not have an entry for this, which seems more of a copy/paste from other articles than an actual validated source. Also note that the article has been like this since it was created in 2012 with 1 edit by SecretStoryStyle and has never been edited by anyone else, except for general wiki maintenance - tagging and link and category fixes. Gonnym ( talk) 14:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Mrschimpf:To be honest, I have no idea. This article has almost no information that I can use to verify. At best I can say that it has the same host and a somewhat similar name. If I had to guess, I'd say it probably is. -- Gonnym ( talk) 18:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 21:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 20:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Theam

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

second nom, still doesn't meet notability and has seen no improvement since the first nom Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 13:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 16:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 16:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. So Why 19:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Joshua Levy

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

WP:BLP of a writer, who doesn't have a strong claim of notability under WP:AUTHOR or particularly strong reliable source coverage to carry a WP:GNG pass. He's the bylined creator, not the subject, of 10 of the 12 footnotes, and one more is his "our contributors" note in the general episode preview of one of the first ten — but, as always, writers do not get over our notability standards by being the creators of coverage about other things, they get over our notability standards by being the subject of coverage written by other people. Which means the only source here that isn't a complete non-starter in terms of establishing his notability is #4, "Montreal is in my DNA" — but that piece of coverage is from the same media outlet that hired him for the closest thing to an actual notability claim here, which means it isn't independent of him for the purposes of helping him get over GNG. All of which means that nothing here is enough to deem him notable. Bearcat ( talk) 17:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep while I did not approve this page through AfC I did comment "My gut says he is notable. He is certainly prolific and funded by the CBC is impressive. Anything that can be added where other people talk about him and his work would be very helpful to establish notability" This is just a new stub and can be expanded. There are many pages in AfC that are far more worthy of deletion then this page. Legacypac ( talk) 17:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Notability is not demonstrated by how prolific a person is, it's demonstrated by how much attention he does or doesn't receive as the subject of coverage, and an individual CBC station in a media market is not the same thing as the national network. Bearcat ( talk) 20:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 13:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral While I believed the CBC Montreal / Quebec Writers' Federation writer in residence and the CBC longlist qualified under NAUTHOR's inherent notability for multiple prizes, in reading the above discussion, and E.M.Gregory's comments, I am no longer convinced and am refactoring my !vote from Weak Keep to Neutral. Chetsford ( talk) 03:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Note that the article is entirely PRIMARY sourced. Mostly sourced to short stories by Levy. There are also 2 segments wher ethe CBC "takes a listen to home recordings" and a Levy family recording is includes, plus "'Montreal is in my DNA': Meet Joshua Levy," introducing him as this year's writer-in-residence. We need SECONDARY. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I believe Chetsford felt badgered into changing their vote. The subject accomplished a notable award (writer in residence at the CBC, Canada's national TV/radio network), has had their works reviewed, and certainly meets WP:GNG at the very least. Ifnord ( talk) 16:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Although the CBC is a national network, Levy was not selected by the CBC Nationa,. He was selected by CBC Quebec. The 2017 CBC/QWF's 2017 writer-in-residence was Sarah Lolley [10]. As for reviews, I have found no reviews of his work. Published reviews are precisely the sort of thing that does help pass WP:AUTHOR. User:Ifnord, if you have found reviews, please bring to them to the page. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion at this time. North America 1000 06:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

2020 Formula One World Championship

AfDs for this article:
2020 Formula One World Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOSOON. No news specifically related to 2020 has been released yet. T v x1 13:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

None of which constitutes content currently included or that can be included in the contested article. The Miami Grand Prix is a proposed race. 2020 is the earliest possible year it could be held. There is no contract for it (yet), so it simply cannot be included in the article. And what happens beyond 2020 is logically of none relevance to a 2020 season article. Thus nothing of which of you mentioned justifies keeping this article. Moreover there was some prior discussion at WT:F1 which also had the sentiment that it should not be created yet. T v x1 18:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Yoyowhatsup2 ( talk) 03:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Naugadh

Naugadh (  | 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 couldn't find many references on the subject. Maybe merge it Singrauli district. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 13:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 13:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 13:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Police detachment

Police detachment (  | 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 term isn't notable. There are many terms for police subdivisions, but they aren't all notable. Virtually a DICDEF.  —  Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs)  02:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 04:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —  Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs)  03:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui  雲 水 13:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No sources = no article. Sandstein 17:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Fantasy Imperium

Fantasy Imperium (  | 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 has just passed the 13 year mark without a single source. A search on Google News, JSTOR, and newspapers.com fails to find any RS. WP:FANCRUFT applies. Chetsford ( talk) 12:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford ( talk) 12:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 18:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 18:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 18:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 18:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply


Improper nom by clueless editor The nom apparently believes that tabletop roleplaying rules are "designed to be used for the play of a game exactly like Monopoly or Stratego" [15]. Nobody who does not understand the text of a Wikipedia article in its plain meaning can legitimately nominate that article for deletion.

Nom doesn't even understand the FANCRUFT essay. That's pretty clueless. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Newimpartial - the nom's argument may or may not be correct, but you clearly have an epic inability to understand and utilise WP:CIVIL.
In relation to the AfD, I actually find myself more struggling to understand your case (which I assume is a "Keep" !vote) - where does the nom mention anything along those lines at all. It seems a clear notability case being made, rather than a content dispute. In any case, I was unable to find any suitable coverage (generally non-reliable user RPG reviews) in my own WP:BEFORE sweep and thus it warrants deletion. Nosebagbear ( talk) 18:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
If I need to be more explicit, I will. The nominator has provided no valid grounds for deletion. FANCRUFT, even if the article were such (which it isn't), is not policy-based grounds for deletion whatsoever. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Need being the operative word - if you jump in at rude you miss the opportunity to see whether a civil answer would work. Nosebagbear ( talk) 20:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
You are, of course, correct. I was overcome by Chetsford's belligerently-repeated falsehoods, but I should know to act better. Sigh. (I meet all diagnostic criteria for being easily trolled, but the ADA doesn't recognize those as grounds for accommodation. :p) Newimpartial ( talk) 21:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Query - I'd been considering a redirect, and the target noted by BOZ would be a good one (I don't think merge, since there isn't much space for additional content to go in). However that article specifically says it is for notable pages, and by dint of us redirecting OR merging, we'd render it unsuited for the list. However the further down the list you go, the less obedient to its own instructions the list gets. Thoughts? Nosebagbear ( talk) 19:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
That's a great question, Nosebagbear. I'm tentatively open to Redirect as well, however, had the same issue you identified. For now I've decided to stay with Delete on the basis of WP:OTHERSTUFF; i.e. because there is policy non-compliant content in one area of WP that doesn't establish a precedent for continuing to introduce it. But I think you're right in that it could go either way. Chetsford ( talk) 19:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. AFD also withdrawn by norminator [16]. (non-admin closure) Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 19:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Man, Myth & Magic (role-playing game)

Man, Myth & Magic (role-playing game) (  | 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 on a toy or game product that has had no sources attached to it for the preceding 15 years. A BEFORE check on Google News and JSTOR fails to find any references. Fails GNG. Chetsford ( talk) 11:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford ( talk) 11:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

*Strong Keep This game received extensive print reviews from reliable publications at the time of its release; it sails way beyond GNG requirements. A completely inappropriate nomination. Newimpartial ( talk) 11:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

No problem. If you could provide the outlet names, dates, authors, and article titles for the "extensive print reviews" I can add them into the article and then withdraw the nom. However, we usually can't keep an article based only on an individual editor's vague memory of once seeing a source 40 years ago. Chetsford ( talk) 11:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The Dragon review was in Issue 80; the Space Gamer review was in Issue 60, and both were entirely independent of the subject. Someone who is not working today can look up the additional details required for citations, but the GNG is already met at this point (though there are many, many more references). Newimpartial ( talk) 12:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
"The Dragon" and "The Space Gamer" are not RS, I'm afraid and product reviews of a game in a game fan-zine would be WP:ROUTINE and WP:FANCRUFT even if they were, ergo it fails the GNG if that's all that exists. If you can maybe point out some of the coverage it received in places like the New York Times, CBS News, peer-reviewed journals, books from mainstream publishing houses, etc., that might be helpful, though. Otherwise, this probably needs to go to a Wikia site or some more appropriate place than Wikipedia. Chetsford ( talk) 12:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I strongly advise you to drop this line of argument, Chetsford. In the 1980s, these two publications were professionally-edited magazines, not fanzines, and you really ought not to throw those labels around without knowing what you are talking about. It is not necessary for a game to be reviewed in the New York Times or academic presses in order to be notable, any more than an art exhibition needs to be discussed in the New York Times or academic presses. Professionally-edited specialty publications are quite sufficient.
In another matter, could you please stop AfD-bombing inappropriate articles, and maybe even have a look at the history of deletion discussions in this area, before we have to go to ANI about it? Newimpartial ( talk) 13:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I strongly advise you to drop this line of argument, Chetsford. I appreciate your advice but have decided against following it at this time. Thank you for offering it, however! Professionally-edited specialty publications are quite sufficient. Actually, two routine product reviews will usually be quite insufficient to meet the WP:SIGCOV criteria for any commercial product be it a game, toaster, or athletic shoe. Chetsford ( talk) 13:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I don't know how you formed that particular opinion, Chetsford, but WP:NBOOK specifies that two published reviews are sufficient, and they need not come from news organizations. All of the products you have recently sent to AfD are published books, so NBOOK applies in this case. Hence, GNG is met, as I noted before. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
This is not a book as envisioned by NBOOK, it is a "a fantasy role-playing game" that consists of a variety of products assembled in a box or sold as supplements including dice, notepads, artwork in the form of fictional maps, instruction books, etc. Monopoly has an instruction book but we don't evaluate it by NBOOK. So does my Orajel toothbrush. The mere presence of bound and printed paper as one of a series of items included in a packaged product is not in the logical spirit of NBOOK. With only two (rumored) sources, both in questionably RS fan-zines, the article fails GNG. Chetsford ( talk) 13:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Chersford, your obstreperousness makes it difficult for me to remain polite. A magazine with a professional editorial staff is not a "fanzine". A book in a box - and this is the only one of your RPG nominations to date that shipped in a box - is still a book. The book is the game. To argue that NBOOK doesn't apply to Man, Myth and Magic because it shipped with dice and a poster is akin to arguing that NBOOK doesn't apply to Ursula K. LeGuin's Always Coming Home because the deluxe first edition shipped with an audio cassette of filk music for the book. The Unknown Armies RPG doesn't lose its book status if it ships in a slipcover that transforms into a GM screen. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
"your obstreperousness makes it difficult for me to remain polite" I've never had difficulty remaining polite in an AFD so, while I can't empathize with you, I do sympathize and am sorry you're having difficulty. "A book in a box" In any case, this product is shipped with a game board (what it refers to as "maps"), notepads, dice, and an instruction/rules booklet, and is designed to be used for the play of a game exactly like Monopoly or Stratego. It is not a book in the spirit of NBOOK regardless of how it is branded or marketed by the manufacturer. The very fact that this article is so bereft of sources that no other argument is left than trying to re-imagine this game system as a book so as to invoke inherent notability on the basis of two fanzine reviews probably makes the argument for deletion better than I could. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one! Chetsford ( talk) 13:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
No editor who believes that role-play game rules are "designed to be used for the play of a game exactly like Monopoly or Stratego" should be allowed to nominate RPGs for deletion. But full marks for trolling! Newimpartial ( talk) 15:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
"But full marks for trolling!" Is this absolutely necessary? You previously indicated you would refrain from using AFD discussions for personal attacks against editors with whose !vote you disagreed. [17] AFD is a discussion in which we share and discuss our opinions and examine the differences between them. It's not a space for us to belittle each other's motivations. If you find the subject of roleplaying games is so emotional for you that you can't contribute without calling other editors names perhaps there are other areas of WP you could consider contributing to for a bit? Chetsford ( talk) 15:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Are you unaware that repeating untrue statements on which you have been previous corrected is actually a form of trolling? Well now you are aware. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Keep. The nom indicates that ""The Dragon" and "The Space Gamer" are not RS," but it has been established by multiple, lengthy precedents here that they are, in fact, RS. Since neither is also the publisher of "Man, Myth, and Magic" they are also independent. In fact many early reviewers were independent writers/reviewers giving them the status of Peer Reviewers much like any journal. The nominator here can't just make up notability guidelines to cover for his lack of knowledge in this topic domain. Web Warlock ( talk) 16:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
While I disagree that one can equivocate "The Space Gamer" to indexed journals from academic publishers such as Journal of the American Medical Association or International Security, I respect your obvious passion for this topic. Chetsford ( talk) 00:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Can't bear to thank by name the person who first volunteered the Dragon and Space Gamer reviews, eh? Including the issue numbers? Figures. :P Newimpartial ( talk) 19:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America 1000 06:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Skyler Stonestreet

Skyler Stonestreet (  | 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 electronic music singer, seems to only be covered by Rolling Stone source which doesn't suffice. Other than that, the page is mostly unreferenced. aNode (discuss) 07:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Indeed it works, but two or three sources aren't really enough to establish notability. Even if more sources are found, a complete rewrite and expansion will be needed, probably in a draft. aNode (discuss) 14:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 20:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. So Why 18:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Kolawole Sunday

Kolawole Sunday (  | 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 page was earlier AfD under different name with title 'Kolawole Omoboriowo' . See log here : /info/en/?search=Special:Log/delete?type=delete&user=&page=Kolawole_Omoboriowo&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype= . No changes done other than putting a new name to the same BLP Devopam ( talk) 11:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 12:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost ( talk) 04:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 09:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 21:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Miles Bakshi

Miles Bakshi (  | 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 individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix ( talk) 13:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 18:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Scottish School of Wrestling

Scottish School of Wrestling (  | 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 real content on the article other than tables of history. Official website is gone. Can't find many reliable sources of information that establish notability. — Moe Epsilon 17:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 18:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 18:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Is this a vote for delete? -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 18:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
What else could "non-notable as a school, or promotion" also mean? — Moe Epsilon 20:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Just wanted to make it clear that it's not a comment. -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 20:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 18:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. So Why 19:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Hefty Records

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

Listing after declined PROD. Not enough sources to establish notability, no major releases (as far as I can tell). Ytoyoda ( talk) 19:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - meets GNG. Not an overwhelming number of notable artists, but coverage indicates this label has had a noticeable cultural impact. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 14:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The NYT article does not support GNG here because Hefty is not the subject and is just mentioned in passing. The XLR8R source in not a clearcut WP:RS.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC) reply
    The label gets reasonably substantial mention in the Hughes NYT profile (he is the label's founder and a release of his on the label is discussed), and XLR8R was a major print music publication for almost 20 years. Also, this does not exhaust available sourcing (e.g., [23], [24]). Chubbles ( talk) 12:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Chubbles. Satisfies GNG. James500 ( talk) 21:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The requirements for references that meet the criteria for establishing notability is a lot different than the criteria for supporting facts within an article. So, while this NYT reference can be used in a latter capacity, it fails the former because it is not "intellectually independent" and fails WP:ORGIND. Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is also the same reason that the xlr8r reference and the chicagoist reference also fail the criteria for establishing notability. Also, notability is [[WP:NOTINHERIT|not inherited]. Without references, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 21:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC) reply
    • ORGIND is not part of GNG. The lead section of WP:N makes it very clear that if a topic satisfies GNG it does not have to satisfy any SNG including ORG. WT:ORG has a much lower level of participation than WT:N, which is why some parts of ORG represent a minority viewpoint. James500 ( talk) 02:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
      • Hi James500, all of what you said is untrue. Nowhere in GNG does it state that if a topic satisfies GNG it doesn't have to satisfy any SNG. Nowhere does it say anywhere that ORG represents a "minority viewpoint". WP:N provides generic guidelines that can be applied to all articles but certain categories provide additional clarification and also represents consensus. There are no "levels" applied to guidelines. Both GNG and ORGIND have the same "level" or standing since both are parts of guidelines (not policies) and are accepted by general consensus. The purpose of guidelines is to provide clarifications on policy. GNG and ORGIND actually provide clarification on pretty much the exact same things but NCORP provides extra clarification in relation to companies/organisations. So, for example, both mention that sources must be "independent". GNG states "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent" NCORP clarifies even further point out that articles that "repackage" these works (relying extensively or merely repeating) without adding sifnificant original/independent analysis/opinion are also not independent and helpfully labels this as "intellectual independence". Hence why both the references you've provided fail as not being "independent" of the topic. Whether you look at GNG or ORGIND, same thing, but a better clarification is found in ORGIND. HighKing ++ 10:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Sources have been added to the article; the in-depth interviews given here are usually accompanied by summary information and analysis. This is, to be honest, quite a fair bit of attention from the press for a record label. Chubbles ( talk) 13:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Response Hi Chubbles, you've added two additional references but neither meets the requirements for establishing notability. This one from the Chicago Tribune is an interview with the founder and since it is not intellectually independent, it fails WP:ORGIND since it does not contain any original/independent opinion/analysis that is not attributable to Hughes. It also fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it contains no information about the company. The other reference from StopSmiling is labelled clearly as an "oral history" from Hughes and fails for the same reasons. ORGIND defines "intellectual independence" and it goes on to state: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing ++ 17:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
      • That guideline is intended to prevent the use of press releases and wholesale regurgitations of press releases as sources. An interview with a journalist at the Chicago Tribune is inherently going through an editorial process. It does not make sense to apply that guideline here, nor to interviews conducted by reliable sources generally. Chubbles ( talk) 18:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
        • Two points on that. The first is that an interview with a founder, repeated verbatim, has always been regarded as a PRIMARY source and was never acceptable as a reference to establish notability of an organization. Second, the guideline is intended to disqualify information that explicitly originates from the company itself. Before it was updated this year, is stated other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people. After the update, it clarified that references must be "intellectually independent" and requires "original and independent opinion" that is "clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". I don't see how your interpretation of the guidelines is correct but hopefully others will chime in. HighKing ++ 11:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
          • I don't see how that guideline would be wise, especially as applied to arts and entertainment, where interviewing is crucial to journalism on the topic. If you are a music journalist and you want to write about a label that's putting out what you think of as important and noteworthy music, where do you go to get information about it? Of course, you go to its founder and to its roster. The jazz encyclopedias I use all the time are obviously sourced from interview and oral history material - sometimes even the artists' website bios. In all of these cases, independent editorial judgment has been exercised to assess that 1.) This is an important enough artistic entity to include and promulgate in the magazine/newspaper/encyclopedia, and 2.) The reporting institution does not have good reason to believe the information gleaned from the artist or label runner is suspect (and so, as a reasonable but rebuttable presumption, neither do we). As a source, interview material often should be couched in Wikipedia articles as "X said this about himself" rather than "X did this", but that is a separate issue from the fact that the music the label releases was artistically noteworthy enough for the reporting institution to interview the label head in the first place. Chubbles ( talk) 13:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
            • There's a difference between what sources can be used to establish notability and what sources can be used to establish facts within an article. Your examples above are (probably) just fine for the latter but there's different standards for the former. To establish notability, the reference must be intellectually independent. I've pasted what that means already above. If a topic is truly notable, it should be possible to find two references. Also, because the references you've produced involve interviews with the founder - and the founder appears to be much more notable than this company - it appears to me that the interviews are not *about* the company which also indicates that the company isn't notable in its own right. HighKing ++ 15:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
              • My contention is that interviews conducted by major newspapers/magazines/websites/etc. with editorial boards are intellectually independent for the reasons I have stated, and so establish notability nonetheless. As for the latter point, if the articles just discussed Hughes's status as a scion or his live performances, you might have a better case there, but the sources all relate to Hefty and its releases specifically in some substantial way. Chubbles ( talk) 15:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep - Since this debate started, the separate article on the label's founder has been merged into this label article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Hughes III). I contend that the above discussion on whether an interview with the founder constitutes coverage of the label is a bit of a red herring. The label got noticed because its founder has a famous relative, and that founder has done little else beyond running the label. Therefore the two topics pretty much go hand-in-hand, and even more-so now that the founder's article has been merged into this one. This label probably would not be independently notable per Wikipedia:NCOMPANY if the founder wasn't semi-famous, but it got a few pieces of reliable coverage anyway. It's not much but enough for a basic stub article. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 18:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Comment But .. but .. but ... hang on Doomsdayer520, stating This label probably would not be independently notable per Wikipedia:NCOMPANY if the founder wasn't semi-famous is an admission that the company is not notable in its own right and since notability is not inherited, the semi-famous founder's purported notability doesn't enter into consideration. And getting a few pieces of reliable coverage also isn't the full criteria for establishing notability since the "coverage" must also meet the criteria in SIGCOV *and* ORGIND *and* CORPDEPTH. Can you take another look and perhaps revisit your !vote based on the above? HighKing ++ 12:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Actually I would advise you to stop repeating the exact same argument to every vote that is different than your own. My point has been made once, your point has been made at least thrice and counting. Let the consensus process play out. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 17:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The AfD process is about discussion, not blindly registering !votes - that's how consensus is formed. Also, this is the first time ever I've pointed out to an editor that their reasoning essentially admits the company isn't notable but then wants to ignore NOTINHERIT because, you know, perhaps that isn't what you meant and everybody deserves to get a chance to put their point across without fear of misinterpretation. HighKing ++ 12:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I did not ignore the "not inherited" rule; I just don't think it applies as indicated in my vote, though I did not mention it specifically. Take a look at WP:BLUDGEON for some community thoughts on how consensus is built. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 16:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is not a notable game. The mentioned possible merge target explicitly is only for notable games. If someone needs the text for another article, I'd be happy to restore and userfy. So Why 19:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Zen and the Art of Mayhem

Zen and the Art of Mayhem (  | 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 on a game is sourced entirely to an email posted to a Usenet group and a single review on "rpg.net." A search of JSTOR, newspapers.com, and Google News fails to find any reference to "Zen and the Art of Mayhem". Fails GNG. Chetsford ( talk) 10:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford ( talk) 10:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

*Improper nom by clueless editor The nom apparently believes that tabletop roleplaying rules are "designed to be used for the play of a game exactly like Monopoly or Stratego" [25]. Nobody who does not understand the text of a Wikipedia article in its plain meaning can legitimately nominate that article for deletion. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

That's too bad. Just a few months shy of the anniversary of being named a "precious editor" by Gerda Arendt, I've now been downgraded to a "clueless editor". I guess I flew too close to the heavens. Chetsford ( talk) 22:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
She was also fond of User:Jack Merridew, for what it's worth. BOZ ( talk) 23:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I don't think it matters for this discussion but correcting: I didn't have the pleasure to meet him, joining in 2009. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Chetsford ( talk) 16:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chetsford ( talk) 16:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No reliable sources presented, which seems to negate the lone "keep" argument. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Double Cross (role-playing game)

Double Cross (role-playing game) (  | 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 on a game cites no sources of any kind. A search on JSTOR, newspapers.com, and Google News fails to find any reference to "Double Cross" within the context of a game. Chetsford ( talk) 10:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford ( talk) 10:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Improper nom by clueless editorThe nom apparently believes that tabletop roleplaying rules are "designed to be used for the play of a game exactly like Monopoly or Stratego" [26]. Nobody who does not understand the text of a Wikipedia article in its plain meaning can legitimately noninate that article for deletion. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Chetsford ( talk) 16:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chetsford ( talk) 16:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The RSN discussion notwithstanding, consensus here is that the sources are sufficiently reliable to establish the subject's notability. So Why 19:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Angus Abranson

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

Part of the Cubicle 7 WP:WALLEDGARDEN. Article has zero WP:RS. (Note that the book "Designers & Dragons" is of questionable RS: it is supposedly an historical text but is (a) published by a novelty t-shirt and card game company [27], (b) the author has no credentials as an historian.) A BEFORE search on Google News, newspapers.com, Google Books, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and JSTOR returns zero ("0") results for the name "Angus Abranson" in RS. Chetsford ( talk) 08:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial ( talk) 09:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial ( talk) 09:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chetsford ( talk) 16:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Chetsford ( talk) 17:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Note the rationale for deletion is full of errors. The nom does not appear to understand that the publishers of Designers & Dragons are actual publishers exercising editorial oversight; he also does not recognize the established role of non-academic professionals in various fields, including this one, in writing RS monographs about their fields of expertise. He also, hilariously, has no idea what a tabletop roleplaying game is, in spite of nominating ten of them for deletion. I propose that his first game be the relaunched OSR Tunnels & Trolls. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I understand the novelty t-shirt and card game company "Evil Hat" [28] is exercising editorial oversight over its book Designers & Dragons. My position is that a BLP source to a single (i.e. 1) RS - particularly when that RS is an historical text published by a novelty t-shirt company - does not meet the significant coverage requirements of GNG. Chetsford ( talk) 17:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
"Novelty t-shirt company"? The Nom clearly has no idea what these book and games are, nor has the background knowledge on the publishers in thies field and what criterea have been used for the past 10 years here to estblish notability. The nom is clearly out of his depth and this needs to be taken into consideration when evaluating any of their claims. Web Warlock ( talk) 20:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
If Lady Gaga sells T-shirts she doesn't stop being an artist, man. (And Beating the Story doesn't stop being a book of literary criticism because it's published by a game company.) You really don't understand what Evil Hat does. But 10/10 for trolling! Newimpartial ( talk) 17:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Since Designers & Dragons was at question in this AFD, I believe everyone in this thread has been notified or participated in the RSN discussion on the book except for User:Webwarlock. BOZ ( talk) 21:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Being a Gen Con Industry Insider Guest for 2013 should be plenty to establish notability. Web Warlock ( talk) 20:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Just for descriptive purposes for other editors !voting here, your link above is to "ennie-awards.com". Chetsford ( talk) 02:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The ENnies are the Premier award for the RPG industry, akin to the People's Choice Awards. The fact that you don't know this is reason enough for you not to be tagging articles for Deletion in this area. Web Warlock ( talk) 02:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
All I said was for descriptive purposes for other editors !voting here, your link above is to "ennie-awards.com". It's purely a convenience note for editors who don't want to click on the link. That aside, I don't think one could really equivocate the "ENnie Awards" to the People's Choice Awards. A better equivalent would be a trade group trophy of similar acclaim, like the Commercial Real Estate Awards of Excellence or the Master Plumber Association Awards. Comparing the "ENnie Awards", which are InkJet certificates passed out on the floor of a trade show at a rental hall in Indianapolis and are covered in outlets like "The Dragon" and "rpg.net", to a 40 year-old awards show with a live audience of 7,000 that's nationally broadcast on network TV to millions of people and is covered by hundreds of major daily newspapers, is probably not an entirely realistic comparison, right? Chetsford ( talk) 02:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
True, but it is the premier award in the field. And the "trade show" is 60,000 people, which is I think, fairly large as trade shows go. So no, it's not the people's choice awards, but it is fair to say they are "akin" in that it is the same idea (voted awards). Probably the Nebula awards would be similar in many ways (smaller trade show, more prestige, bigger market, nicer awards) Hobit ( talk) 04:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Plus it has already been established through multiple precedents at Wikipedia that an ENnie AWard winning person, company or game is a good indication of notability. Your condescending tone above does nothing but expose your own ignorance of these topics. Web Warlock ( talk) 11:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Fair enough. I think 60K is on the modest, albeit very respectable, size. The Miami Boat Show has more than 100,000 people attend [30], and Concrete World Expo and the Home and Housewares Show both also have 60K+ [31] and I would certainly be surprised if we passed a BLP through on the basis of the individual once speaking at Concrete World Expo. The two times I was at Gencon it seemed like a respectable show and certainly a mid/mid-major event for central Indiana. I would probably not place the "ENnie Awards" on the same level of the Nebula Awards - the recipients of which regularly produce New York Times bestselling books. All that said, however, I think the more modest description of premier award in the field versus the previously offered description of it being like the People's Choice Awards is reasonable and I appreciate you providing this clarification and edification. Thank you! Chetsford ( talk) 17:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
So, Chets, is this Gencon claim a tacit admission that your repeated "puzzle game" and "stratego" opportunities were deliberate trolling all along? The opportunity for vigorous trolling has not yet been added to the Deletion criteria, you civil contributor, you. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Claims that there are no RS are simply not credible. Attacking "Designers & Dragons" based on it being published by a "novelty T-shirt company" is at best a misrepresentation aimed at garnering sympathy from less discerning editors (Evil Hat may sell T-shirts, but they are primarily a book publisher). This line of reasoning strikes me as being dangerously close to coatracking WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Sangrolu ( talk) 13:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The nominator's lack of knowledge of the subject and borderline subscription to the IDONTLIKEIT school of AfDing is made clear by their unawareness of the reliability of Designers and Dragons, obsession with characterising its publishers as a "novelty t-shirt company", and comment about Abranson not appearing in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which as anyone who could be bothered to do their homework would be aware, only includes dead people, and non-inclusion in which even of dead people does not mean they are not notable in any case given how selective it is! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete w/ caveat Fails GNG, ANYBIO. The acceptability of Designers & Dragons seems to be, per the discussion at RSN seems to be questionable at best. Many of the other Keep arguments seem to me to be against the nominator/nomination rather than addressing how this person may or may not pass notability.
    Of the sources in the article: Chronicle City appoints “Grim” James Desborough is essentially an interview and does not count towards notability; The GenCon "Alumni list" is of no use for notability; Dare you face the Dragon's Den? is not RS; The NewsCentral link [32] is dead; The Angus Abranson interview: A look inside Chronicle City is, again, an interview; and winning an ENnie is insufficient for ANYBIO#1. I have not had time to do a good BEFORE but as the article stands it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I will spend some time searching for sources but, for now, I will presume if there were any easily findable material it would have been presented. Jbh Talk 14:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I would note to the closer that, while the discussion at the RSN is not yet closed, there is strong support there for Designers & Dragons as a RS including for biographical articles. In addition, as I have pointed out elsewhere, geeknative meets the requirements for reliable self-published source, as the author "is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications" ( WP:RS/SPS). Also, per WP:CREATIVE, the subject's guest of honor roles demonstrste that "The person is regarded as an important figure ... by peers or successors."(#1) Newimpartial ( talk) 14:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
"The acceptability of Designers & Dragons seems to be, per the discussion at RSN seems to be questionable at best." No, that's not what it seems to be saying at all thus far. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Hmm... after your comment at RSN, just going by the table, there are 7 Yes, 7 No and 1 Maybe. I suppose there is some arguable semantic difference between Maybe and questionable but applying it to my statement above would be more of an exercise in pedantry than elucidation. Jbh Talk 15:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
While this is a BLP, and Jbhunley has correctly tallied the current !votes for BLPs in the RSN query, the initial comment that "the acceptability of Designers & Dragons seems to be questionable at best" does not specify the context of BLPs, and is therefore inadvertently misleading. The overall !votes for "game and game company" sourcing from Designers & Dragons is nine yes and four no, with two maybe. That survey would not be accurately read as "questionable at best" under any circumstances. Of course what actually matters is the policy-based arguments, but the interpretation of those is unlikely to be resolved soon. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
See above: "more of an exercise in pedantry than elucidation." Jbh Talk 16:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Cubicle 7. Obviously if the AFD nomination for the merge target closes as "delete" then this page/redirect should also be deleted, but in the meantime there is a consensus that Cthulhu Britannica is worth mentioning but not having its own article. Primefac ( talk) 17:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Cthulhu Britannica

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

Yet another product page in the Cubicle 7 WP:WALLEDGARDEN. Tightly paraphrased puzzle book is unreferenced except to a single RS. A search of newspapers.com, Google News, and JSTOR fails to find any additional RS coverage. Chetsford ( talk) 08:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 10:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 10:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 10:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Improper nom by clueless editor - The nom apparently believes that tabletop roleplaying rules are "designed to be used for the play of a game exactly like Monopoly or Stratego" [33]. Nobody who does not understand the text of a Wikipedia article in its plain meaning can legitimately nominate that article for deletion. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Hi Newimpartial - I see you're mass copy/pasting a declaration that I'm "clueless" across several recent AfD discussions [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], etc. As you're aware, this is extraordinarily disruptive to the AfD process. I don't mind if you use personal attacks against me, however, they might discourage other editors from joining in the discussion. Thanks for your consideration. Chetsford ( talk) 15:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Editor warned. -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 18:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chetsford ( talk) 15:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Chetsford ( talk) 15:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
User:Izno, there are now five Reliable Sources in the article. Care to re-think? Newimpartial ( talk) 18:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 19:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge to Cubicle 7 (changed !vote) reviewed in two independent, reliable sources with editorial oversight - Black Gate and The Gaming Gang. Meets NBOOK and the GNG. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • (changed !vote explanation) - While I believe I have shown that GNG is met and an individual article is viable, I do recognize that Notability doesn't guarantee a separate article for each topic. In the event of a Merge, I would strongly recommend a section in Cubicle 7, alongside their card games and their non-notable RPG publications, rather than at Call of Cthulhu (role-playing game). Major multi-volume CoC settings, like this one or Delta Green, should not be collapsed into the CoC article, particularly as they can be played with other rulesets such as GUMSHOE ( Trail of Cthulhu, Fall of Delta Green, etc.). Newimpartial ( talk) 15:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC) reply
According to the article, this is a series of 9 instructional/rules books. The bare minimum of two reviews required of NBOOK apply to a single book. As for GNG, there is not a "two source" policy. GNG requires significant coverage in "multiple" sources. There is no "two and done" criteria. Chetsford ( talk) 14:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
There are at least three distinct, full length reviews from those two sources. I don't know how you don't see the GNG pass for this Origins award-winning line. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Black Gate and TheGamingGang are both independent, reliable sources. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Newimpartial, do you have to be asked at every AfD to provide links? I'm happy to look at links but I'm not going to chase down what I think might be the link you're looking at and comment on it only to find you were referring to something else. We've already had this dance. HighKing ++ 15:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
You know what? I will tell you why I don't volunteer links at every AfD; it has to do with petitioner/grantor mechanics and with my dislike of whack-a-mole.
Petitioner/grantor dynamics are discussed inter alia in Robin Laws' RPG Hillfolk. In this dynamic, a petitioner approaches a potential grantor with a request, and the grantor decides whether or not to grant the request. At AfD, whenever the nom has applied inappropriate criteria or done a poor BEFORE, their typical move is to insist that those with a better grasp of the sources not only describe what is there (which is required by policy) but then to show links, which the grantor will either recognize as reliable sources or move the goalposts again. Whack-a-mole comes in in responding to grantor's objections, like the whole digression about Designers & Dragons' INDEPENDENT status based on a potential grantor's misunderstanding of the Open Game License.
This is simply not the way AfD is supposed to work: there is not supposed to be a set of self-proclaimed gatekeepers who only do a perfunctory BEFORE check before nominating, who "force" knowledgeable participants to inform them about the reliability of sources and the status of awards, and who "require" the other participants to present links as if they, the grantors, were unable to use basic internet tools or comprehend basic texts. Whack-a-mole is exhausting, and in my view WP does not benefit from a pattern that drains editing energy into defending the existence of, rather than improving, relevant content. AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The whole process has exactly the same emotional valence for me as dealing with civil POV pushers, especially in this most recent round of nominations. Providing links to SEALIONS is well known only to encourage them... Newimpartial ( talk) 17:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Petitioner/grantor dynamics are discussed inter alia in Robin Laws' RPG Hillfolk. In this dynamic, a petitioner approaches Though an interesting anecdote, the rules of the "Hillfolk" fantasy game are not generally cross-applicable to Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia with a dedicated set of guidelines and policy. This is simply not the way AfD is supposed to work ... "require" the other participants to present links Actually, this is exactly the way Wikipedia works (through links or, in the case of offline sources, traceable citations). The existence of sources must be demonstrated, not simply declared. Per our policy: The existence of multiple significant independent sources needs to be demonstrated. Hypothetical sources (e.g. "the company is big/old/important so there must be more sources, I just don't have/can't find them") do not count towards the notability requirement. Thanks! Chetsford ( talk) 18:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Wikilawyering and straw man argumentation. In no AfD discussion have I ever merely asserted that sources exist; I have always said where they may be found. The provision of links is simply not required in WP policy, and the case of the High King asking for more detail on the Cubicle 7 chapter of Designers & Dragons in the same AfD where I had already given the page numbers for that chapter is highly illustrative of inappropriate behavior by grantors in this situation, equivalent to carping for links for sources already given by name, or your (Chet) demanding the authors and titles for print reviews for which the issue numbers had already been given.
And if you don't see that the relevance of the petitioner/grantor dynamic extends beyond the game in question, then you are just not paying attention. The best games illuminate life. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
There are now five reliable sources to the article, including sources for the two reviews, Designers & Dragons, and two reviews. If you don't think the enies count, for some reason, that still leaves four RS. Can we do better than a merge? Newimpartial ( talk) 18:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment please note that WP:WALLEDGARDEN is not a policy, purely an essay. Please provide a policy reason for deletion. Additionally describing RPG books as "a puzzle book" could be interpreted as a bad faith nom. Canterbury Tail talk 18:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
And I did so characterize it, which has led to me being impaled painfully roasted at ANI just now. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I must say I don't believe merging it into the Call of Cthulhu page would be productive, it's already a large article and this line is notable in it's own right. Not all Cthulhu licensees are notable, but due to the awards this one is. Now if we were to have a separate article on Call of Cthulhu licensees then maybe, but the section in the CoC article is already getting large and doesn't even cover all licensees. Canterbury Tail talk 21:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I also note that the current reference used for the Origins Award does not mention Cthulhu Britannica or Shadows over Scotland anywhere -- Imminent77 (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
That's my bad choice of reference. It's fixed now; my apologies. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
You mean, apart from the fact that it has won industry awards and is reliably sourced on its own? Apart from those things, sure, it would be better to merge. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Call of Cthulhu (role-playing game), as per Imminent. No notability on its own. Also, the arguments against his proposal aren't convincing. This article is for supplements for use in the Call of Cthulhu only, so that's where the redirect ought to be, not to the company. The reader will have the opportunity to read about the game and the supplements on the same page. -- 1l2l3k ( talk) 14:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There seems a rough consensus that sufficient reliable sources (both present and extant) exist to demonstrate WP:GNG. A reminder to editors on both sides, both her and in the related AfDs to remain civil (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Doctor Who Roleplaying Game

Doctor Who Roleplaying Game (  | 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 references other than to product page of publisher. A BEFORE search on Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, and newspapers.com fails to find any SIGCOV mentions in RS. Part of the Cubicle 7 WP:WALLEDGARDEN. Fails GNG. Chetsford ( talk) 08:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial ( talk) 09:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial ( talk) 09:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 09:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Since Designers & Dragons was at question in this AFD, I believe everyone in this thread has been notified or participated in the RSN discussion on the book except for User:Hobit. BOZ ( talk) 21:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Ah, I mean I did not mention the book in the AFD, but when I say "I found one more source" that was the one I was talking about. So noted in case anyone has a concern about the book as a source. BOZ ( talk) 21:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
"sources aren't great" Since five of the eight unique sources are to the company's own product page and e-store, and two of the others to trade show webpages, I'd agree with that much. Chetsford ( talk) 02:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
You may not be aware of this, Chet, but what matters at AfD (for non-BLP pages) is not the quality of sourcing in the article, but the quality of sourcing that exists. In this case the extant references are just fine; many are simply not in the article. Which is why BEFORE is more than just a Linklater film series. Newimpartial ( talk) 11:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Meets GNG. It doesn't really matter how many of the references aren't independent/RS, so long as there are multiple RS remaining. The publisher website links aren't "negative RSes". If you can delete a bunch of references and the remainder passes muster by you, I'm not sure why you wouldn't do that instead of posting an AFD. (I lie. I do know why.) - Sangrolu ( talk) 13:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Shehzad Shaikh

Shehzad Shaikh (  | 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 actor does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:ACTOR.. and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. beware of namesake. Saqib ( talk) 07:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( talk) 08:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Clarendon Road Presents: A Plastic Free Record

Clarendon Road Presents: A Plastic Free Record (  | 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:NMUSIC; references are to Weebly blogs, a Youtube video and an iTunes link. No prejudice towards a recreation, though.
Regards, SshibumXZ ( Talk) ( Contributions). 07:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Thearticlehelper101: Hi! Those all things are not of much importance in establishing the notability of an article, an article must be in compliance with either Wikipedia's general notability guidelines or Wikipedia's guidelines for music.
Regards, SshibumXZ ( Talk) ( Contributions). 19:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ SshibumXZ: This is not an article that is related to India, so maybe we could get a person who knows about albums to propose this album for deletion... This is because I have a very large background in album, and single wikipedia pages. I have created and contributed to many of Jack Johnson's single, and album pages. I have also been a pioneer in the Bahamas' albums and tours, as well as Nikki Yanofsky & Wyclef Jean articles. This article is very well written and is also specialized in Jack Johnson. Therefore I am for this article to stay up. Thank you! Wikipedia's general notability guidelines or Wikipedia's guidelines for music.
Regards, User:JozefM0000000003 ( Talk) ( Contributions). 3:56pm, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@ JozefM0000000003, Thearticlehelper101, and Hadhadhad13: Hi! Like I have said those are of not much importance to Wikipedia and don't establish notability; Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a platform to publicise a cause, however good may it be. The concerned article doesn't cite even a single reliable source and doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for albums, either as it hasn't landed on the charts for any nation's charts for music. This article not being concerned with India has no value and doesn't back up your argument.
Sidenote — I intend to open sock-puppet investigations against these accounts, as, they might be handled by one, single person and may be in violation of Wikipedia's policies on alternative accounts; there's a lot of behavioural and non-behavioural similarities among the accounts. You may want to disclose any conflict of interest or sock-puppets you may have, else, you'd be running the risk of an indefinite block from an admin.
Regards, SshibumXZ ( Talk) ( Contributions). 00:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ SshibumXZ: Hello! If this article is agreed to be deleted, could be at least make it an article draft until smore articles are made about it
Regards, User:JozefM0000000003 ( Talk) ( Contributions). 8:14pm, 14 August 2018 (US eastern time)
@ JozefM0000000003: Hi! Yep, that is an option, that should be considered; I urge the concluding admin to draftify this article per the creators wishes so that they can work to further improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SshibumXZ ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC); edited 21:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC) and 14:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC). reply
@ SshibumXZ: Okay thank you! Let's just keep the article up for a few more days to see if anything else is published about it! If that doesn't work than I can just copy the article and make a draft of the article. But please don't delete the article until I copy it and make it into a draft!
Regards, User:JozefM0000000003 ( Talk) ( Contributions). 10:47pm, 14 August 2018 (US eastern time)
  • Keep — This article should be kept because it has more notable information that just a track list. If you were to read thoroughly through the Wikipedia:Notability (music) albums section, you would see that the album would need general notability and little more than just a tracklist. Well this album has far more information than just a tracklist. It also has a lot of general notability because the album is raising money for a non for profit organization, and the albu is on iTunes. Therefore this article should be kept on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadhadhad13 ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment - it is not the presence of information in the article that counts for notability because anybody could just make an article longer by making stuff up. The problem with this article is that almost all of the information beyond the tracklist is from the same people who are trying to sell the album. If you are going to quote the notability standard, look at the whole thing, including the following from the very top of the WP:N page: "We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 17:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Rangri dialect

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

Rangri dialect is not something that would be expected to have a standalone article on English Wikipedia.. does not appear to meet GNG. Saqib ( talk) 07:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 09:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 09:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
In worst case scenario, I would opt for merge. -- Saqib ( talk) 17:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
What does that mean? Sam Sailor 18:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No further arguments for delete were set forth, and the nominator has also subsequently !voted keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Boogie2988

AfDs for this article:
Boogie2988 (  | 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:NBIO, WP:GNG Seraphim System ( talk) 06:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ( talk) 06:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: How on earth does this fail GNG? A cursory Google search turned up loads of results. The Huffington Post and Kotaku "Story of Francis" piece cited in the article, as well as this Daily Dot profile I found clearly establish notability, IMO. That said, the sources need to be massively improved--too much YouTube and Twitter. Page was deleted in 2014 (barely, I might add and it really should have been relisted) and subject has clearly increased in notability since. He also won a notable award, as well. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 07:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The HuffPo article is a minor entertainment column [39] - I'm not even sure how much weight editors give these type of feel-good HuffPo stories for notability, since HuffPo has a bit of a reputation for churnalism ("he beams a fond face to his fan base."). Kotaku is basically a blog, I don't think we could even use it as RS for a BLP. Seraphim System ( talk) 07:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Also this discussion about Daily Dot for BLPs at RS/n leaves me with the impression that Daily Dot is not a preferred source for BLPs. Usually with awards we look for coverage of the award in mainstream press sources - in this case there is a mention in [40]. That is really the only chance this has of passing WP:ANYBIO, in which case the article would most likely have to be stubified. Seraphim System ( talk) 07:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm leery of the ease with which you are dismissing these sources. WP:NEWSBLOG supports the inclusion of sources like the Kotaku and Daily Dot pieces, since those have pretty significant editorial oversight. I'm also wary of accepting a contested RSN from 4 years ago. I know this does not inherently establish notability, but the subject has over 4 million subscribers and is the first result when you type in "Boogie" on YouTube. Should be an indicator that the subject is notable as an internet personality. These sites don't just choose to cover every single Youtuber. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 16:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm going to defer to Drmies on the BLP sourcing issues. It definitely looks better after the cleanup. Seraphim System ( talk) 17:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
User:Seraphim System, this is maybe a good occasion for me to say that it is rare that I run through an article with such a blunt axe and it doesn't make me feel good. Plus, it's entirely possible that another admin thinks I revdeleted too freely, but in BLPs I'm always rather safe than sorry. It could be argued that the stuff in the article about the mother shouldn't have been revdeleted since apparently she died nine years ago, but it was pretty egregious and its only "evidence" was the subject's own YouTube video, so I find these things to be really unacceptable. There are, after all, still living relatives around, most likely. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 17:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Note. I just went through and revdeleted maybe 400 edits from the history--all BLP violating stuff sourced to YouTube. This includes all kinds of allegations phrased in Wikipedia's voice, vandalism, etc. I restored an earlier version, a clean one. So you'll have to imagine the rest of the chatty content. I compared all the sources, and the only thing that's not in the current version (besides, of course, dozens of YouTube links) is this chatty bit of entertainment news, most of it pictures and other peoples' tweets in reaction to the "news". Unfortunately there are no reactions to those tweets, but hey. Drmies ( talk) 14:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
OK, but we don't delete articles just because they're stubs. It can be improved with the sources the article possesses, and I have no doubt it passes GNG (which is the chief complaint here) even as it is. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 18:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Susmuffin, Etzedek is correct: the stub thing is not an argument for deletion. Some will never progress beyond stubs (think Olympic ice skaters of the 1890s), but that doesn't matter. There are some reliable sources right now, and the burden is on you to ponder, and discuss, whether that's enough in-depth coverage to make it pass the GNG--focus your thoughts on that. Good luck, Drmies ( talk) 00:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (not like this is a shock). Subject is notable as an internet personality (4 million subs, first hit when you search "boogie" on youtube, sites like DD, HuffPost, Kotaku don't just write about any streamer) which the sources in the article assert, as they cover the subject in substantial detail. Subject also won a notable gaming industry award. This has turned into a cleanup/RS debate (even though nom hasn't provided any compelling argument for why the sources aren't reliable) which shouldn't be what AfD is used for. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 06:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I should note that I know the subscriber count and search hit that I mentioned don't establish prima facie notability, but they are pretty significant pointers in the right direction. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 06:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - (I find deplorable that the AfD nominator seems to have attempted to pull a fast one by not notifying the article creator, so I left the notification to Czar myself). I was initially wary when Czar recreated this article in late 2016 (I had closed the 2014 AfD as a (barely) delete, enforced with G4 for years eventually salted the page due to repeated recreation), but if you'll allow me to quote my own keep rationale from a JonTron AfD: "Plenty of sources about the person and the channel from well-established RSes like [Ars Technica, Kotaku, Engadget].... I think people dismiss Youtubers and a lot of "internet culture" things because they're not into it, but WP:GNG is the baseline for every article, regardless of topic, and this article's sourcing far exceeds the requirements of GNG, even though admitting that may displease some who would like to see Wikipedia cover more academic/scientific/historical topics and less pop-culture ones." If passing GNG is somehow not convincing enough, WP:CREATIVE #1 (an "important figure" having won a major award in the major industry award ceremony) or maybe even WP:ENTERTAINER #2 might be applicable (although these are just more-specific definitions of the overarching GNG pillar). Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 16:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
If I really didnt notify the article creator that was a misclick, I rarely ever do that - I think maybe once or twice when prodding IP-created articles, but that's it. Seraphim System ( talk) 17:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
It's okay, sorry if it sounded like I assuming some malicious intent. I've notified Czar anyhow. :) Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 17:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I agree with all of this. Well said. This isn't all on Seraphim though, there was a discussion regarding this page on another talk page, where an editor (who doesn't seem to always exercise great judgement) said something along the lines of "this isn't notable." Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 01:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I would support Keep as well, at this point. The BLP cleanup seems to have helped a lot, and I did not know about the award when I nominated this. I think the sources are borderline, but the award is sufficient to pass, imo. Seraphim System ( talk) 02:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep Keep, speedily if the last "delete" argument is retracted (@ Susmuffin) since the nominator has withdrawn. In its current state, the article sits around what I originally wrote, which I considered significant coverage at the time. I'm not usually for permastubs but this (1) represents a figure proportional to his notoriety—considering the short but brief articles written about him—with a brief introductory WP article that could not adequately merge into some parent article, and (2) has an opportunity to further expand in the individual's lifetime. Re: the award, for what it's worth, it was mentioned in both the original and bloated version of the article. Worth checking for those things and attempting to engage the page history before coming to AfD. czar 10:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Super Keep - Boogie2988 is a very well-known YouTuber, with mainstream media interest and 4.5 million subscribers. One of the biggest reasons he is well-known is because he's been on YT since 2006 and has always been a decently large channel, and most remember him even from the earliest days of the platform. WikiProject YouTube rates his page as mid-importance, and I have gone and added the daily pageviews graph and it hovers between 500-1500/day in the last 30 days. It should not be such a stub. It's kind of insane that this is even being considered for deletion. Once this AfD is rightfully closed as keep, I will add an expand tag to this page. - Dmezh ( talk) 03:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Dmezh: The user that originally raised a question of notability (not nominator) did the same thing for a page I created, which also turned out to be a speedy keep. Not the best exercise in judgement, imo. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 03:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Time to put this out of our misery. Clear consensus to delete. Courcelles ( talk) 08:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Modern Mars habitability

Modern Mars habitability (  | 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 WP:POVFORK of Life_on_Mars#Habitability. Even if this topic should be spun off from the main article (I make no comment on that), this article is not that spinoff: the reliance on primary sources, the non-encyclopaedic tone, and the 200K of text all suggest that WP:TNT is the best option here. Ca2james ( talk) 04:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - it is a notable topic with many papers published on it every year, as well two conferences or conference sessions: UCLA in 2013 and NASA / LPL in 2018. The citations used are similar to those used in other Wikipedia articles in the topic area - NASA online astrobiology magazine, mainstream astrobiology journals, with preference for review papers where available, NASA press releases and so on. Much of the material in the first half is based on Nilton Renno's review paper in Space Science Reviews "Water and Brines on Mars: Current Evidence and Implications for MSL" and on the sources cited by him. The POV's are as expressed in the sources. There's also a section Modern Mars habitability#Views on the possibility of present day life on or near the surface which gives an idea of the range of views on this matter as in the sources given. If any particular sources are questionable or any POV's inaccurately summarized please elaborate on the talk page of the article. On the length then it's not a problem for those not interested in the topic or who find the section in Life on Mars#Habitability sufficent for them, by WP:NOTPAPER. And for those that need to find out more, the thoroughness of it is valuable - I have covered all the most significant findings of the last decade in this topic area succintly. On tone, then that is easily fixed by wikignoming / copy editing if you see issues of that sort. It has been in Wikipedia now since March 2017. I am baffled that it suddenly has an AfD without prior talk page discussion Robert Walker ( talk) 05:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
As the article creator I'd expect you to !vote keep. My opinion is that the article is written as an essay and the amount of copy editing needed to bring it in line with the MOS is so substantial that it would be better to blow it up and start over. The fact that you created this article to add more detail than in the Life on Mars article confirms that this is a content fork with your POV. But let's see what the community consensus is. Ca2james ( talk) 15:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Okay. A few points of clarification. It was created to expand on the Habitability section of Life on Mars but not as a POV fork. If you check the edit history I am one of the main editors of the current version of Life on Mars#Habitability. I've had a look at it to try to understand what makes it seem POV and I think you may be referring to the last paragraph of the lede, which I notice was unattributed. Sorry for the confusion. I just forgot to add cites to that sentence when summarizing the article. I have now expanded it slightly, with cites for the entire range of views in the modern debate on modern Mars habitability as described later on in the main body of the article. I don't see any other unattribued POV's; if you find any, please comment on the talk page. As for Modern Mars Habitability being larger than the section in Life on Mars#Habitability, is common to have expanded sections like this in wikipedia, e.g. Climate change feedback#Ice-albedo_feedback which I was reading earlier today and I wanted to find out more so went to the relevant expanded section. Robert Walker ( talk) 22:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Another factor might be the wikignome edit on 1st April to delete quotes from cites. After discussion on the talk page it was agreed that I could reintroduce the quotes that gave the views of editors on modern Mars habitability - but I had a lot on and never did this. I have now reintroduced them to some of the cites, making it easy to verify that their views are summarized accurately in that last paragraph of the lede. Robert Walker ( talk) 22:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
A point of clarification: the quotes in references were removed to remove excessive and inappropriate non-free content, per WP:NFCC [41] by the administrator who is possibly the most knowledgeable about copyright and fair use on Wikipedia. Characterizing that edit as "wikignoming" is a bit misleading. Ca2james ( talk) 16:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the correction - and just to say - the article didn't have more than is usual for fair use from any individual source, just lots of one to two paragraph quotes, from many different cites, intended to help the reader verify the cite quickly. I was not aware that was considered an issue here. dept Robert Walker ( talk) 03:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Another point of clarification: This article is not a WP:FORK of Life on Mars. The reason is that Life on Mars covers life through the entire history of Mars. Modern Mars habitability by focusing on present day habitats can cover it in more depth. Articles can overlap if they have significant amounts of own content, as is the case here. Robert Walker ( talk) 04:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment: on "it is a notable topic with many papers published on it every year" -- then why, when I go to Google Scholar with the search phrase "modern Mars habitability", do I get exactly ZERO citations? I can't even understand what the modifier "modern" would mean for the speculative scientific concept of the habitability of Mars. "Modern", when it applies to science at all, applies to relatively recent treatments, often with a major paradim shift, of a subject that has become classical or traditional, which is clearly not the case of the habitability of Mars, a feature of the planet that's still a matter of conjecture about conditions under which no known terrestrial lifeform can survive. You say this article isn't about "Life on Mars" but about "present-day habitats." As far as anyone can tell right now, there ARE no "present-day habitats" on Mars. Yakushima ( talk) 11:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Yakushima: This is explained in the second paragraph of the article. For anyone who votes after reading only the first paragraph, I have now edited that to say it as well. It now reads: "Modern Mars habitability is a subject of interest to astrobiologists. The title of this article is from the title for the four day NASA /LPL conference session in spring 2017 [1], to discuss whether Mars in its present state has any habitats for native microbes, lichens, or other living organisms. Robert Walker ( talk) 14:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I may have confuse some of you by calling "Modern Mars habitability" a "term" - I didn't mean a technical term like "Special region" which is the Planetary protection technical term for a region of the Mars surface where Earth life could potentially survive [2]. For this technical planetary protection term, try a Google scholar site for "Special region" Mars. More generally astrobiologists use many expressions to refer to this topic, and a search like present day Mars habitability allowing Google scholar to select the articles using its weak AI may be the best way to search. Robert Walker ( talk) 14:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
No, Robert, we are not "confused". You are in denial of the COI, OR, synthesis, bias, and gross misrepresentation of cited references. Rowan Forest ( talk) 17:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
"Astrobiology Science Conference Session on the Modern Mars Habitability" -- is the heading on an announcement, not on a conference proceedings. The announcement is phrased with a glaring grammatical error (that "the" before "Modern"), so it's patently obvious that it's not the name of the actual conference. It's a single heading for what amounts to an informal announcement. Yet it's cited in your article as if it was the title of the actual conference. It is not. See [42]. The actual conference title is "The Astrobiology Science Conference 2017 (AbSciCon 2017)", as you could see yourself by clicking on the link. I don't know whether you are being disengenuous or just sloppy. In a way, for this issue (what to call the topic), it doesn't matter. Consider what I'm looking at: a meticulous formatting of the heading of a mis-worded conference announcement as if it was the title of the actual conference, in support of the idea that "Modern Mars Habitability" is how any scientist refers, in professionally-edited RS, to your supposedly notable topic. This is simply yet more evidence for a hypothesis with years of supporting evidence on Wikipedia: your aparent lack of WP:Competence. Ordinarily, AGF requires me to believe that apparently incompetent editing owes to problems of understanding. At this point, Robert, with so many years of edits -- and tangles with other editors -- behind you, is that remotely credible? If in fact it's still somehow a simple matter of a lack of understanding, it would necessarily to owe to some chronic cognitive deficit that allows you to write on complex topics while missing glaring errors in your writing and the writing of others. Really? I'd get that looked at, if I were you. Perhaps there are medications that can help. (Honestly, I've wondered about this ever since that tangle we had elsewhere, about your claim that lunar platinum was so abundant and easily extracted that it could even become a construction material.) The problem with the AGF assumption, however, is that these errors are not randomly distributed. They are tendentious, POV-oriented, OR-oriented -- after years of being told to not do that. In this light, your excuses along the lines of "I forgot", even if true, imply, "I didn't think it was worth remembering." Any such evaluation signals, after all this time, nothing but contempt for the process. It doesn't matter how obsequious your apologies might sound to your own ears. They ring hollow in ours, and for good reason. Why should I or anyone continue to Assume Good Faith when your lack of it looks so undeniable now? Yakushima ( talk)
And, as if adding more words could make a false statement true, we have Robert (in apparent response to my comment on the term "Modern Mars Habitability"), insisting that the Modern Mars Habitability session of a conference with a different name) was four days long. [43] No. the session wasn't. It looks like it took place on a Wednesday and a Thursday, with an evening poster session on a Monday. [44] At least they didn't call it "THE Modern Mars Habitability." A quick check of most of the abstracts reveals that, except for a few non-native-English-speakers, the term "modern" is mostly avoided, with a preference for "present-day" or "recent." Where "modern" modifies a term in the abstract, it almost invariably refers to specific measurements or phenomena, not to the concept of Mars Habitability. "Habitability of Modern Mars" would have been a barely acceptable title, though "Habitability of Present-Day Mars" would have been better, and, because "habitability" carries the nuance of "human-habitability" (in WP:COMMONNAME terms) "Life on Present-Day Mars" would have been better still. But hey, how about "Possibilities for Life on Mars"? Or hey, I know: " Life on Mars"! "Modern Mars Habitability" might as well have been "Habitability of Mars -- New and Improved! (by Robert Walker.)" This is a pretty obvious failure of WP:COMMONNAME. It's not how most laymen would express the actual concept, nor is there much evidence that the term "Modern Mars Habitability" has ever been used habitually except by a single session organizer for a conference in 2017. Yakushima ( talk) 05:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
YakushimaSorry I can't change the title in the middle of an AfD and nobody suggested issues with it before. It's about the habitats not the search for life, after all by Charles Cockell's work they could all be uninhabited habitats. All we have at present is that NASA [45], ESA (European Space Agency) [46] and DLR (German Aerospace, Berlin) [47] have investigating them as a top priority. E.g. Objective B of NASA's first science goal is "Determine if environments with high potential for current habitability and expression of biosignatures contain evidence of extant life.". This is the WP:POV I intended to express in both title and article. The platinum idea is from Dennis Wingo's "Moon Rush" which I find an interesting possibility; it is not my own. Robert Walker ( talk) 07:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for very much the reasons laid out in the nomination: a) content fork with b) a strong POV flavour and c) overly strong synthesis based on d) too much primary sourcing. A monolithic contribution like this (200k+ added in one fell swoop) does run the risk of being assessed as a bloc rather than in bits and pieces, and the overall impression I get is that this will be very, very hard to fix piecemeal. Suggest TNT, then stepwise improvement of the existing treatment at Life_on_Mars#Habitability followed by spin-off when indicated. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 17:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This article unfortunately points up the creator's massive loquaciousness (the lede alone is currently 14 paragraphs) and lack of understanding of how the Wikipedia encyclopedia should be written and sourced. I suggest that if the article creator wants to keep it that he turn it into some kind of eBook, Kindle book, or website, for those interested in this kind of relatively speculative (and WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH) sort of material, and massive disruptive images. As Elmidae states above, this article cannot be salvaged for Wikipedia purposes at this point, so a WP:TNT is in order if at all. Softlavender ( talk) 01:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC); edited 05:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Please note, I got distracted by work for the t-ban appeal mid edit of the lede. It is not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. It is just that I had left some extra paragraphs in the lede by mistake that didn't belong there, and because it is mid edit I haven't yet cited many of the sentences which are indeed based on WP:RS Robert Walker ( talk) 02:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I wasn't talking about the lede. Softlavender ( talk) 05:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I was replying to your first sentence there. Robert Walker ( talk) 07:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Since this AfD started, you have been massively adding to the lede, which was the least of the article's problems. You do not understand WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, which have nothing to do with RS. The fact is, you created and posted a massive mess of an article that as Cullen points out is 10 times longer than it should be, and as other people have pointed out, is a largely unsalvageable personal essay. You then posted a 3,500-byte notice about the lede in the middle of this AfD, even though only one person had mentioned the lede and only to say it was too long. Softlavender ( talk) 10:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I had had no talk page comments on the article for over six months when it was unexpectedly taken to AfD on a bunch of issues that nobody had raised with me before. When I reviewed the list of issues then they seemed to me to apply mainly to the lede. Also no other section in the article has been mentioned by name, only the lede. Robert Walker ( talk) 05:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a massively bloated personal essay based on primary sources, synthesis and original research. Any acceptable article would be no more than one-tenth this length and would concisely summarize secondary sources. The article is full of essay-like language and I see no way forward to salvage this and convert it into an acceptable encyclopedia article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete because I can't find one scholarly source that uses the term "Modern Mars habitability" (e.g. zero from Google scholar; zero, therefore, confirmation test that google scholar is working). I then opened the first 5 cites in this article, again none I could find using that phrase. I see search returns for "Mars habitability", but too few that such a fiction novel-style bloated article seems unjustified. Why not merge this with Life_on_Mars#Habitability section?, or distill any new sources down to one or at best a few paragraphs somewhere appropriate in the Life on Mars article. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 03:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Rowan Forest: Your thoughts would be appreciated here, given the effort you have put into the Life on Mars article. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 03:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The title comes from the title of the 2017 conference session on Modern Mars Habitability, which ran from April 24–28 in Mesa, Arizona [3] Robert Walker ( talk) 04:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — This assay is the final dump of Robert's POV on the subject which he was unable to insert elsewhere in Wikipedia. Indeed, he created this assay as a POV fork of Life on Mars (habitability of Mars). He has a very, very, very long history of promoting fringe views on current Martian life at the surface, and on the planet's current habitability. His favorite trick is invoking that his sources are all "modern", therefore he wants to trump all consensus, knowledge and theories about the habitability of Mars. Besides his cherry-picking of fringe hypotheses, he pours his own enthusiastic POV, spiced with obnoxious amounts of synthesis. Finally, his walls of text have un-encyclopedic writing style and format. Be advised he also indulges in WP:CHEESE during discussions on this subject, which prompted me years ago to not interact with him, but just contain the damage of his assays. Cheers, Rowan Forest ( talk) 13:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC) (Formerly BatteryIncluded) reply
  • Delete POV fork as others have said. Full disclosure, I'm married to an astrobiologist who sometimes works on this topic. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC) OH, OF COURSE.... When Robert created this, we already had a full article on this topic at Colonization of Mars. I might have suggested, "Merge", but as others have often said, Robert's style is better suited to solo writing and self publishing, and I doubt a merge effort would advance without a fair bit of disruption. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 22:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Minor point of correction. Was not a POV fork when it was created. Check 19th March 2017. Robert Walker ( talk) 21:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC). reply
Well... Modern Mars habitability looks like a spinoff of the 2017 - even the 2015 - version of that section; it also looks like it had its roots in Draft:Present day habitability of Mars, which was rejected in 2015 for being OR and reading like an essay, and where it was pointed out that Life on Mars#Habitability already existed. On that Talk page, you write But I don't feel I can write on this topic myself, if I can only mention the point of view that Mars surface is uninhabitable for present day life. To me it appears that you wanted to include much more detail than was in the original article, and to include a POV (namely, that Mars can support life) that was not in the article. That seems to be a POVFORK to me although it may not have been your intent to create one. Ca2james ( talk) 02:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
It is true that back in 2015 it was rejected as a POV fork of the main Life on Mars#Habitability because at the time that section said the surface of Mars is uninhabitable. That is why I didn't add it.
In spring 2017 I was able to edit the main article to represent the WP:POV of mainstream astrobiologists, including the NASA planetary protection officers, most astrobiologists publishing in Astrobiology journal, DLR's HOME project, etc, that it is an open question whether such habitats exist. I created this article at that point in time, and it was not a WP:POVFORK at that time. Check Life on Mars#Present - 19th March 2017. After this AfD started I checked it for the first time this year, and noticed that another editor has since edited it back to say that the surface of Mars is uninhabitable, see Life on Mars#Cumulative effects. This section refers to dormant life which is indeed killed over a timescale of 500,000 years. However, NASA's Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group concluded from Curiosity RAD measurements that even the most sensitive microbes such as E.coli would survive 500 years of cosmic radiation and as you can read in their report, this is not used as a criterion for the Mars "Special regions" where Earth life may be able to survive [4]. Robert Walker ( talk) 14:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "Astrobiology Science Conference Session on the Modern Mars Habitability". Lunar and Planetary Institute. organized by Carol Stoker, NASA Ames Research Center, and Alfred McEwen, LPI, University of Arizona, April 24–28, 2017
  2. ^ Rummel, John D.; Beaty, David W.; Jones, Melissa A.; Bakermans, Corien; Barlow, Nadine G.; Boston, Penelope J.; Chevrier, Vincent F.; Clark, Benton C.; de Vera, Jean-Pierre P.; Gough, Raina V.; Hallsworth, John E.; Head, James W.; Hipkin, Victoria J.; Kieft, Thomas L.; McEwen, Alfred S.; Mellon, Michael T.; Mikucki, Jill A.; Nicholson, Wayne L.; Omelon, Christopher R.; Peterson, Ronald; Roden, Eric E.; Sherwood Lollar, Barbara; Tanaka, Kenneth L.; Viola, Donna; Wray, James J. (2014). "A New Analysis of Mars "Special Regions": Findings of the Second MEPAG Special Regions Science Analysis Group (SR-SAG2)" (PDF). Astrobiology. 14 (11): 887–968. Bibcode: 2014AsBio..14..887R. doi: 10.1089/ast.2014.1227. ISSN  1531-1074. PMID  25401393.
  3. ^ "Astrobiology Science Conference Session on the Modern Mars Habitability". Lunar and Planetary Institute.
  4. ^ Rummel, John D.; Beaty, David W.; Jones, Melissa A.; Bakermans, Corien; Barlow, Nadine G.; Boston, Penelope J.; Chevrier, Vincent F.; Clark, Benton C.; de Vera, Jean-Pierre P.; Gough, Raina V.; Hallsworth, John E.; Head, James W.; Hipkin, Victoria J.; Kieft, Thomas L.; McEwen, Alfred S.; Mellon, Michael T.; Mikucki, Jill A.; Nicholson, Wayne L.; Omelon, Christopher R.; Peterson, Ronald; Roden, Eric E.; Sherwood Lollar, Barbara; Tanaka, Kenneth L.; Viola, Donna; Wray, James J. (2014). "A New Analysis of Mars "Special Regions": Findings of the Second MEPAG Special Regions Science Analysis Group (SR-SAG2)". Astrobiology. 14 (11): 887–968. Bibcode: 2014AsBio..14..887R. doi: 10.1089/ast.2014.1227. ISSN  1531-1074. PMID  25401393.
Issues with the lede

This was originally a separate section AFTER the discussion. This apparently is not permitted which is why it was turned into a block of text. Not meant disruptively and I am very sorry! But can't change it now per WP:REDACT. Robert Walker ( talk) 08:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Please everyone bear with me. I am in a difficult situation with a simultaneous AfD and topic ban appeal. This article was here for well over a year and nobody found any issues with it.

  • The problems of WP:POV are actually WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. - the POV's are cited now, in the lede, including the mainstream WP:POV but previously they were only cited in the body not in the lede. Just a matter of copying cites into the lede and expanding that section a bit.
  • The problems with sourcing are just that I have not copied all the necessary cites into the lede yet. Sentences that may seem WP:OR if you are not familiar with this area are well sourced later in the article but I haven't copied the cites into the lede yet.
  • The problem with encyclopedic tone is one that I am working on. - it seems to be mainly an issue with the lede, at least, that is the only part that anyone has commented on. It was the main reason for working on the lede. I believe that it is now fixed. If you have thoughts about this do please comment on the article talk page with any criticisms or suggestions!
  • The bloated lede was an accident. I left several large paragraphs in the lede by mistake that did not belong there. They were not cited yet because it was mid edit.

As a quick response I have deleted the material that got added to the lede by mistake, and done a quick rewrite. There are still several uncited sentences in the lede. They are all backed up by WP:RS but I need time to find the sources and copy them into the lede. I will have time to do more work on this after the t-ban appeal. @ Ca2james: it would have been much appreciated if you had raised this issue on the talk page first. Also it would have helped if you had chosen any other occasion to do it over the last year, instead of right in the middle of the t-ban appeal. The timing was unfortunate.

In our past collaboration you contributed as a wikignome. As the article progressed you agreed that I had improved it by responding to your comments [48] [49] [50] and at the end were satisfied with the article. Sadly, as soon as we were finished, two other editors from the main article came and merged it away. However we did our work there in good faith as I had been told by one editor on the Talk:Morgellons page that this was an appropriate article to write. We weren't to know that two other editors would disagree and merge it away.

I was so surprised that this time you just took the article straight to AfD. I have several good articles to my name here. See for instance Hexany. I created the article and did more than 50% of the edits [51]. It was one of my first articles here. I am also one of the main editors of Planetary protection and of Regular diatonic tuning amongst other work here. Robert Walker ( talk) 04:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

The problems with tone are mainly with the whole article, not just the lede. The problems with POV are that the whole article is an exercise in original research and synthesis. The bloating is not confined to the lede but again is a problem with the whole article. I'm not required to discuss the AfD nomination with you first. I saw the article, saw the problems, thought the problems would require more work to fix than starting over, and nominated it. Articles can be nominated for deletion at any time. That you have worked on other articles and they still exist has no bearing on this discussion. Ca2james ( talk) 04:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Robert, no one has even mentioned the lede except to say it's too long. The fact that you can't follow/understand what people are saying and are instead posting a gigantic unnecessary/unwanted wall of text here, massively cluttering up the AfD discussion, is yet another symptom of your lack of competence where Wikipedia is concerned. Softlavender ( talk) 05:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Softlavender: You did however say that the lede was too long as your first sentence. I took you to mean that was the most important point and two oppose votes were added at a time when the lede was excessively long by mistake. It is still too long I agree, I am studying MOS:LEAD and working out how to trim it down. It is very important for the issue of encyclopedic tone and WP:POV as I need to establish quickly that this is a notable subject, and that the topic of Modern Mars Habitability is a topic of major conferences, that Mars simulation chambers are built to investigate it, and it is under investigation by teams of researchers worldwide. Without that background the reader doesn't have sufficient information to assess the weight and interest of the rest of the article. Perhaps much of the rest of the lede should go into a first "Historical" section. I am working on this. I have had to do this on an article that I wrote over a year ago, and as the first ever objection of this nature. Please be patient, especially as I have a topic ban appeal to respond to at the same time. Also please don't use my talk page style as a reason to delete a notable article. It should be assessed based on the value of the article rather than talk page verbosity of its author. Thanks! Robert Walker ( talk) 11:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

The core of the problem is well beyond the format, or style. I focus on content and scientific accuracy, and the the consensus of astrobiologists. Robert is in complete denial that the surface of Mars is deemed sterile and lethal. He choses to only pick the fringe hypotheses and misrepresent them to fit his beliefs. For example he claims that the radiation at the surface is benevolent, as well as the TOXIC perchlorates on the surface, despite the extensive data on the contrary.(See: [1]) All the problems related to substance in his assay are rooted in his beliefs on Martians, the imminent Martian invasion brought upon the future sample-return, and his ignoring mainstream science. I respectfully suggest to not prolong the outcome of this AfD. Rowan Forest ( talk) 16:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Wadsworth, J; Cockell, CS (2017). "Perchlorates on Mars enhance the bacteriocidal effects of UV light". Sci Rep. 7 (1): 4662. Bibcode: 2017NatSR...7.4662W. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-04910-3. PMC  5500590. PMID  28684729.
  • Comment Robert writes "This article was here for well over a year and nobody found any issues with it." Not a legitimate argument against deletion. See WP:LONGTIME. Why DID it go so long before AfD nom? From my own experience, here's what I'd guess: It could just be that most editors who noticed the new article and who might have addressed the issues with it were already too exhausted from previous WP:CHEESE tangles with Robert. Yakushima ( talk) 11:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Exactly, Yakushima. Exhausted, yet relieved that his collection of assays were dumped at a single page that is not linked by any other article or navigation template. That was the best I could wish for as administrators have never realized (or believed) the extent of Robert's conflict of interest, bias, and synthesis, so all these years has eluded a ban. Rowan Forest ( talk) 16:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
As explained above, we already have an article on this topic at Colonization of Mars. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Thank you for pointing this out, did not see this. prokaryotes ( talk) 00:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Prokaryotes: and @ NewsAndEventsGuy: - FYI - this article is not about Colonization of Mars. It is about whether there are habitats on Mars right now for native extant martian life, and also habitats that Earth microbes might proliferate in if they are accidentally introduced, of relevance for Planetary protection Robert Walker ( talk) 03:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Robertinventor, while the article naming is not exactly descriptive, Life on Mars#Habitability or Colonization of Mars#Conditions for human habitation, is already quiet extensive and seems to cover this article scope. Thus, I would prefer to either stick to those articles, or opt for a new article dubbed Mars habitability at those article talk pages. prokaryotes ( talk) 03:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Prokaryotes It is permitted to have separate articles if each one has substantial amounts of its own content. In this case
  • Modern Mars habitability by being focused on present day habitats can cover it in much more depth
  • Life on Mars covers life through the entire history of Mars and not just the present day.

For your other example,

  • Colonization of Mars for its most part is about how humans can adapt Mars to their purposes. The question of whether there are habitats for extant life on Mars is of relevance only in so far as it either adversely impacts on colonization or it assists it
  • Modern Mars habitability is about habitats that exist already in n pristine unmodified Mars. It does not cover any topics to do with colonization.

Two articles should indeed be merged if they are on the same subject with the same scope, but that is not the case here. Robert Walker ( talk) 04:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Much of this article seems to be copied verbatim from this 2015 [52] blog entry by Robert Walker. And yet, the blog is not cited. Why not? Well, at this point, under AGF, I'm supposed to assume that Robert Walkerdoesn't quite understand RS and sourcing requirements on Wikipedia, and that he also doesn't understand the concept of self-plagiarism either. That's scarcely credible, considering how long he's been editing on Wikipedia, and in this disruptive style where he rather blatantly violates policies and guidelines, then injects walls of text into the ensuing discussion of the problematic behavior. Yes, even if you edit your own past writing into an article, you're supposed to say where and when you're doing that. He can't possibly NOT know that, at this point. And this is the nth time he's punched back against his misbehavior with his walls of text in discussion of contributions. Delete, AND report the misbehavior. Yes, it's chronic. And apparently incorrigible. Yakushima ( talk) 05:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
It's the other way around. I don't want to fill this AfD discussion with an explanation of its complex history which I also have had to unearth by chasing things up part of which I'd forgotten. The main thing is that I am the sole author. It originated in Wikipedia as a user draft. That blog you found is a minor one I have on Tumblr. I think I only put it there in the process of trying to find a place to put it where the links to the footnotes worked. I have two other online vresions that attribute the user draft correctly. So - yes I should have attributed myself here on Wikipedia, but do bear in mind, I was the sole author. I can add an explanation of what happened to the talk page of Modern Mars habitability. I have never come across policies and guidelines on self plagiarism. But surely it is permitted to copy your own Wikipedia content off wiki? And I don't think it can be a serious offence to forget to attribute yourself on Wikiedia on a minor blog post you'd forgotten about. Robert Walker ( talk) 06:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
So, if I understand right - the thing is I am supposed to attribute my own past drafts in Wikipedia if I copy a draft into mainspace even if I am the sole author? Is that what you are saying? I was not aware of this rule. There are vast numbers of wikipedia guidelines and rules. I can certainly do that if it is needed, trace back its past history and post to the talk page of Modern Mars habitability with it. Robert Walker ( talk) 06:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Also the "issues with the lede" was added as an extra section at the end after the discussion. It was not inserted into the discussion. I didn't realize that you shouldn't do that. Another editor said I mustn' make a sub-heading and converted it into a block of text. After that people treated it as part of the discussion and added more votes below it. I can't edit it any more per WP:REDACT. But it was not meant disruptively. You can see what it was like originally here [53] Robert Walker ( talk) 07:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
"I have two other online vresions that attribute the user draft correctly. So - yes I should have attributed myself here on Wikipedia, but do bear in mind, I was the sole author." At the same time, at the blog I found, you said the article included contributions from others. Quoting: " It is just about all my own work. Some parts of it started off as a deleted section from an old version of the Water on Mars article. This was the result of previous work by many editors." So are you sole author OR NOT? How are we supposed to tell what's your own writing and what's plagiarism? You keep defending yourself with "yes, maybe I should have done this", "yes, maybe I should have done that," "I didn't want to create confusion" (but in the process, generating more confusion.) You could have userfied the text on Wikipedia, worked on the draft here, and kept attribution tby other editors clear. You didn't do that. What's really going on here, notwithstanding all your apologetics, is your contempt for Wikipedia process, a process that's evolved to prevent self-aggrandizing behavior, evolved to emphasize cooperation. I have no idea why you think you're so special as to be above all the protocol that applies to us mere-mortal editors. What's certain here, though: being above all that mere-mortal stuff IS how you think of yourself. WHenever you think the world needs more of your endless treatments, you just slosh them in here. Yakushima ( talk) 11:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Oh sorry. So first, yes I did attribute the original draft there. Yes - that would be accurate then, go by what I wrote then. So, you are right. I made a mistake and I should attribute the earlier Life on Mars editors in some way.
None of this is intentional. This is three years ago during which time I have had many life events, including stressful events here in Wikipedia. Have you not forgotten some of the things you did three years ago? For me Wikipedia is normally a minor thing where I do a few edits from time to time a week, and then occasionally I have contributed larger articles where I felt I could contribute to the encyclopedia. Perhaps I have contributed half a dozen total since I've been here. I am not familiar with all the in's and out's of Wikipedia protocols in the way of an editor who does hundreds of edits a week.
I beleive it to be a good article. I added it in good faith to benefit Wikipedia. Whether you want it in Wikipedia is for other editors here to decide.
I do not understand what you mean. How could I have userified the old Water on Mars#Possibility of Mars having enough water to support life? At any rate the past is the past, if there was a way to do it, I did not know of it at the time. If there is a way to attribute now, do say. As you mention I did attribute the off wiki copy. I seem to have lost the attribution in the drafts in my user space, perhaps because I didn't userify the original section, whatever that might mean. Are you saying you can clone an article along with its history into your user space? If so, I did not know that or I would have done so.
If the article is deleted then I have a copy in an external wiki. I will add an attribution to that old version of Life on Mars to it. Meanwhile I will add an attribution to the old version of Life on Mars to Modern Mars habitability using one of the Wikipedia attribution templates which should fix this issue that you have identified with it. Thanks! Robert Walker ( talk) 18:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per pretty much everyone. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 04:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Human habitation on Mars is perforce speculative, but a page on how it can be achieved is worth having, & it's not like there's a huge space issue (unlike a paper encyclopedia). Issues of tone, POV, OR, whatever can be sorted out; it's not like every page created is a GA candidate from edit one, after all (or even edit 1000). Yes, as an SF buff, I have a bias, but don't think it governs; I happen to believe establishing human presence on Mars is stupid from a delta-v standpoint for the foreseeable future. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
It's not an article about HUMAN habitation on Mars. Did you read the article before voting? Yakushima ( talk) 11:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Actually, this is my bad. I skimmed the article when this first came up, and have spent 70% of my wiki time the last few days dealing with Roberts walls of text... I admit I got carelessly confused and posted the false article scope at some other venues. Apologies to Trekphiler who probably followed one of those comments here. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Yes - don't know if this is something that is taken ccount of in AfD closing decisions, but you can tell by comparing names that a lot of the delete votes here are from people who were involved in a simultaneous topic ban discussion - see my declined appeal. They are not topic specialists. Typically they have no knowledge of Biology or Microbiology or Planetary protection or Astrobiology, or of what counts as suitable sources for this topic area. They voted based on my talk page behaviour during the topic ban appeal amd matters discussed there on an unrelated topic area. Of the complaints against me on this article, the only one many of them are able to judge on is encyclopedic tone. Robert Walker ( talk) 13:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
TREKphiler: Yakushima is spot on. This article is neither about nor intended to be about "human habitation" or "how it can be achieved". A quick read of Robert Walker's comments and the article sections suggest that his article is RW's synthesis about "life supporting habitats on 'modern' Mars or somewhere deeper beyond the surface layers, and whether/what forms of life already exist on it". Robert Walker's article uses publications that do not appear to have the word "Mars" or "planet" or "astro*"-related content (e.g. Zuo et al, Molecular assessment of salt-tolerant, perchlorate- and nitrate-reducing microbial cultures, pmid|24150694 see below). FWIW, this is not my field, for full disclosure, and I comment here from wikipedia's content policies perspective. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 15:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Yes, when WP:synthesis is not enough, he often adds fluff-references that do not support the statement but gives the impression that his own POV has reliable references. The whole assay is compromised with misrepresentation and out of context references. It is not salvageable. Rowan Forest ( talk) 15:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Small erratum: That PMID doesn't point to Zuo et al.; you want PMID  19809137. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Indeed. Thanks for the correct PMID, Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 21:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Since we are in an ANI proceeedings related to Robert Walker, I provide the link of the full paper which I checked for "Mars, planet, astro*" etc to conclude RW has continued WP:OR-synthesis. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 13:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Robert is not a biologist either, so his attack strategy to dismiss other people's feedback is null. I am a biologist and I did work in astrobiology and I can say that Robert has been the biggest liability to Wikipedia in this subject for many years. And no, the problem is not limited the title, or a misunderstanding, or the length of the introduction, or the absolute lack of encyclopedic tone, but his pervasive POV and synthesis of biased BS, and his using Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote his blog and beliefs. Reality check: the surface is deemed sterile, known in situ to be bathed in radiation and known in situ to be toxic (10x more lethal than thought 2 years ago! See: [1]) yet, he even moved up to the introduction: "The environment on Mars potentially is basically one giant dinner plate for Earth organisms". Robert's shameful assay runs amok with things like these in defiance of actual scientific knowledge and consensus. His Martian hysteria has persisted for too many years in several Wikipedia articles, and I had to cleanup every time, and weather the unavoidable dramas and walls-of-text. He is not here to build an encyclopedia, and I strongly suspect Robert's only interest in this subject is to mimic his blog content in Wikipedia to give himself some credibility. Robert is unable to understand that this is not his blog, and that we are not just fans talking about his "publications", despite the self-reminder he added at his user page, which brings the need to remark that WP:Competence is required. I must admit that I felt somewhat relieved when he gathered all his assays on Mars and dumped them here, in a single article, because I thought his chronic damage to Wikipedia would be contained in a single page. I just have no more energy left for him and undergo the process of a Mars topic ban, but I am willing to support it and find relevant diffs if the community takes it that way. Rowan Forest ( talk) 15:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC) (formerly BatteryIncluded) reply
Agree with Rowan that CIR is the real issue here... Same problems led to an indef subject Tban (on Buddhism) which AN recently refused to lift. If we had a reason to think this user is improving their skills at collaboration and writing under our policies, there might be hope, but I hate to just add a Tban on Mars and have these problems migrate to some other subject area. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Just read this from Rowan Forest. If the WP:NOTHERE attitude persists in other topics, the only path to avoid further disruption would be a site ban. We're not there yet, but I'd urge Robertinventor to reflect on his goals and their compatibility with the WP:five pillars and other Wikipedia policies. — JFG talk 17:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Correction, we've already been through this with the Buddhism topic area. From that perspective, the same attitude is "persisting in other topics" (i.e., this one) so I think we are indeed already there. An ANI complaint is now pending. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Appears the author already has a blog with much the same content. [54] This makes the article a massive WP:COPYVIO in addition to the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues. WP:DYNAMITE is the only option. — JFG talk 17:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The article originated in Wikipedia as a user space draft. The copies off-wiki attribute the draft. There is no WP:COPYVIO involved. Robert Walker ( talk) 18:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply

List of projects for notifications

[PLEASE KEEP THIS AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE - we are required to add these notices at the end of an AfD page. For some reason I am not permitted to make subsections of this AfD. But I have to add this material! Thanks!

[THIS IS A COMMENT I MADE ON ONE OF THE NOTIFICATIONS THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE CLOSING ADMIN]

There is an article at AfD that may interest you. The article is here Modern Mars habitability. Please comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Modern Mars habitability I'd like to register an objection to how this AfD was advertised in the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mars by @ NewsAndEventsGuy: He said:

"We have at least two articles about colonization, Colonization of Mars (created in or before 2006) and Modern_Mars_habitability (created in May 2017)"

Modern Mars habitability is not an article about colonization. It is an article primarily about the habitability of Mars for extant native Mars life. He continues

"Mars eds may wish to comment whether there is enough good material at newer article to merge, or if it should be deleted outright. So far the only "keep" WP:NOTVOTE is from the article creator, and many have suggested deletion."

I have pinged @ NewsAndEventsGuy: but he has not responded and since that comment has posted we have had several new delete votes here. Robert Walker ( talk) 07:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I was pinged at bedtime. I corrected my mistake at breakfast. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Corrected now, thanks! Robert Walker ( talk) 13:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC) For closing editor - I thought I should mention this on the AfD page as it may be relevant if we get some last minute "keep's" enough for a possible decision of "no consensus", as it may have influenced votes between its posting and the correction here [55]. Robert Walker ( talk) 13:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Robert, the one Keep vote besides your own was from someone who was confused, who thought the article was about human habitability or colonization. When his error was pointed out, he responded, admitting error. Minus that vote, and minus yours, it's solidly "delete" here. So, if anything, your main hope of getting any more Keep votes is that yet MORE people will be confused about what the article actually covers, under the assumption that you wrote about human habitability of Mars. Yakushima ( talk) 05:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Yakushima I follow due process here and have no wish to get keeps through mistaken votes. The Keep you mention, in my view, and surely for the closing admin, should be discounted. Robert Walker ( talk) 15:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Wadsworth, J; Cockell, CS (2017). "Perchlorates on Mars enhance the bacteriocidal effects of UV light". Sci Rep. 7 (1): 4662. Bibcode: 2017NatSR...7.4662W. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-04910-3. PMC  5500590. PMID  28684729.
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 Userfy. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) TheMightyPeanut ( talk) 01:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Tom Ross(Rugby Union)

Tom Ross(Rugby Union) (  | 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 rugby union player is not yet notable. He fails WP:NRU, not having played any match in a professional competition in his career. He has only played in the amateur John I Dent Cup and at youth level. TheMightyPeanut ( talk) 02:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator – as per Nosebagbear's comments below, this can be treated as a WP:USERFY. TheMightyPeanut ( talk) 01:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - As TheMightyPeanut has said, player has not played competitively as of yet, and hasn't yet been named in a National Rugby Championship squad yet, and so will not play professionally until 2019 at the earliest at the moment, so fails WP:NRU – User:Harriesss User talk:Harriesss 10:13, 13 August 2018 (BST)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Userfy - the two above statements are evidently correct as regards notability. However, as the literal only (non-afd) edit is by the creator, a direct userfy seems a significantly more reasonable option that a straight delete. @ TheMightyPeanut and CAPTAIN RAJU: - please let me know if I've missed something that means delete is more appropriate than userfy. Nosebagbear ( talk) 18:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Yes, you're absolutely right. I'll withdraw the AfD request and treat as a WP:USERFY. TheMightyPeanut ( talk) 01:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Cubicle 7. Sandstein 19:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Doctor Who: The Card Game

Doctor Who: The Card Game (  | 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 on a card game is devoid of any WP:INDEPENDENT sources. BEFORE fails to find any RS mentions. Fails GNG. Part of a WP:WALLEDGARDEN involving Cubicle 7 company. Chetsford ( talk) 02:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

What would we merge? Nothing in the article has an WP:INDEPENDENT source. Wikipedia is for providing encyclopedic treatment of notable subjects, not for providing carbon copies of a company's product pages. Chetsford ( talk) 08:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 826 National. Up to editors whether to merge anything from history. Sandstein 19:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

826 Boston

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

local branch of a national organization. We normally do not make such articles. The one rRS is nt sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Normally I'd agree, but many other branches of this organization have Wikipedia pages to themselves. The non-profit only recently converted "national," and used to be a series of copycat pop-ups. Each 826 has its own website, theme, and is referred to as an "826 location," not "826 National" location. News coverage for different branches doesn't overlap. See 826LA, 826 Valencia, 826michigan and even James Franco (who helped fund 826DC) for coverage of chapters as separate entities. If this is deleted for being a chapter, all 4 other current-standing Wiki pages of 826 chapters should be deleted for clarity, and morphed into either an 826 page or fall under 826 National... except the founding part of this organization was 826 Valencia, not the national office. I agree it's a dicey situation, but considering the small size (8 chapters), I think this page should stay just for clarity's sake. Rexlikescheese ( talk) 01:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
every local branch of a national organization has its own website. At this point, everything that could possibly have a website has its own website,. DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC) reply
You can delete it, but what do we do about its contents? It might be suitable for the 826 National page, but what about the other branches ( 826LA and 826 Valencia)? We can't delete 826 Valencia because this was the foundation of the company. We also can't delete 826 National because this is the umbrella for all the organizations now, but started after 826 Valencia. Should we delete 826LA?
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 18:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Solomon Hicks

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

Was dePRODed without addressing the issue(s). Concern =Despite the plethora of sources,none of them are reliable or mainstream media carrying an in-depth coverage - they are all either ticketing agencies or adverts for concerts (The NYT is a fleeting mention). No compelling claims of importance or significance. Notability is not inherited. Not published by or signed to a major label. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 21:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Traveller (role-playing game). Two merge, two delete, this is the compromise. Up to editors whether to merge anything from history. Sandstein 19:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

The Imperial Data Recovery System

The Imperial Data Recovery System (  | 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 se no basis for notability except the one very short veryhnegative review, and no reason to expect anything more DGG ( talk ) 07:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. (I accidentally relisted about 14 hours before the full 7-day mark but I really doubt that changes anything.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 17:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I´m not expert on this kind of magazines, but in what aspects The Space Gamer fails as a RS? Pavlor ( talk) 10:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I checked newspapers.com and it appears The Space Gamer was not - itself - sourced by other RS, which is a key characteristic of a RS (along with a gatekeeping process and a physical persona by which it can accept legal liability for what it publishes). Chetsford ( talk) 12:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
That would be a notability requirement for its own article, not for RS status as source for Wikipedia. If they have (had) editorial oversight, that should be enough (more than enough for a mere mention in another article). Pavlor ( talk) 12:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
No, I'm afraid that's not right. The Daily Mail and Breitbart have gatekeeping processes and we've already determined they're not RS. Editorial oversight is only one of several considerations in the correct evaluation of whether an outlet is RS. Chetsford ( talk) 12:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
These were excluded on case by case basis. Spreading lies and inventing stories certainly is not something one would expect from RS. Can you say the same about The Space Gamer? If not, then comparison to the Daily Mail is certainly not valid. Pavlor ( talk) 14:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
No, because it's (/was) so small and incidental that no RS ever subjected it to scrutiny. Absence of scrutiny is not evidence of reliability. My neighbor and I can start publishing a newsletter using the copy machines at FedEx Office with me as editor and my neighbor as reporter. That doesn't make us a RS. I understand you believe that "If they have (had) editorial oversight, that should be enough" but that's incorrect. I'm going to wrap it up and leave it there; I apologize if I came across as blunt but this isn't an efficient conversation as "If they have (had) editorial oversight, that should be enough" is simply, and objectively, false. Thanks! Chetsford ( talk) 15:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
It is obvious I don´t share your point of view. And your comparison is again, well, flawed. Per WP:RS: Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.
  • Mike Ashley, Michael Ashley. Gateways to Forever: The Story of the Science-fiction Magazines from 1970 to 1980. Liverpool University Press, 2007, p. 273: [56] (evolution of the magazine from a mere newsletter to fully professional magazine)
  • Gary Alan Fine. Shared Fantasy: Role Playing Games as Social Worlds. University of Chicago Press, 2002 (paperback release; original release 1983), pp. before 45: [57] (a classic example of WP:USEBYOTHERS)
I hope now it is clear that The Space Gamer suffices as a source for one small phrase in another article... Pavlor ( talk) 15:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Correct; authoritative in relation to the subject is not based on our independent evaluation of authority as nothing on WP is cruxed on original research. Authority can only be demonstrated by other RS and demonstration is required ("These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."). Chetsford ( talk) 16:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Rough consensus that sufficient sourcing (primarily in the form of published reviews) to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Douglas W. Hubbard

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

fails WP:GNG as far as I can find. —Мандичка YO 😜 05:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. –  numbermaniac 08:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. –  numbermaniac 08:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Per WP:G7, given author's comments at this AFD. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 17:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Alok Ramsisaria

Alok Ramsisaria (  | 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 and non notable. doesn't meet definition of child prodigy, not that that would be notableeither DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Agree. Let's delete the article. I thought a mention or two in a newspaper would suffice. WangDaNian ( talk) 06:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 22:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 22:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Merger can be discussed on talk page if necessary. So Why 18:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Adventures in Middle-earth

Adventures in Middle-earth (  | 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 on a puzzle and game book is sourced to amazon.com and the publisher's website. BEFORE fails to find any RS mentions. Fails GNG and WP:NBOOK. Chetsford ( talk) 01:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial ( talk) 09:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial ( talk) 09:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply
With the Origins Award for Best RPG [60] this ought to be speedy keep. Newimpartial ( talk) 11:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Since you asked nicely, O High King: [61] and [62]. If the nom had asked I would not have included them, because he is rude and there is no obligation to post links - I am not that much better at Google than other people. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
"If the nom had asked I would not have included them, because he is rude and there is no obligation to post links" I'm sorry that I upset you, but I appreciate you providing these links which will help inform the !votes of other editors. Thanks! Chetsford ( talk) 18:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 00:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note that per policy, AfD is to be guided by the sources proven to exist, not only the ones cited in the article. Nevertheless, I have added the 2018 Origins Award and the two RS reviews I noted above into the actual article. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
What reliable sources? I see 4 dead links; 3 citations to Cubicle 7's web site; an award mention without commentary; and one review which may or may not be RS – I'll assume it is. This is not sufficient to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Jbh Talk 20:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Ill fix the dead review link I put in, but why wouldn't the Origins Award link contribute to Notability? It is one of the most prestigious, if not the most prestigious, award in the field. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
It may contribute but I do not see it as being enough to satisfy notability criteria in and of itself. I always have notability concerns about niche topics which do not either have some coverage outside of their niche or very significant coverage in it. Just about every RPG is going to get a couple of industry reviews and I tend to count such as 'trade press' per NORG ie the weight re notability is deeply discounted. I would be much happier to see an article or review which discussed the Origin Award ie an indication that the industry saw it worthy of commentary rather than mere mention. Jbh Talk 21:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_August_13&oldid=1142617077"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE