Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 14 December 16 December >

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. The consensus of this discussion was that the party failed WP:NORG and the GNG. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Me and You - The Israeli People's Party

Me and You - The Israeli People's Party (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable political party; no independent references (all the media references are from well before the party was established and just refer to the political situation). Prod removed by article's creator, who has no other edits to Wikipedia than to this. Number 5 7 23:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • The efforts to delete this article are unjustified and unsupported by evidince and by wikipedia rules. This is an artice about an established and registered party in israel, the likes of which can be found in the following: Or (political party), Pirate Party of Israel, Eretz Hadasha, ect. All those parties are not of yet elected and examples of wikipedia pages of unelected parties are to be found from any country where such parties exist. Wikipedia is not limited by space and there is no reason to deny people from getting such infromation. As for third party refrences - the registration documents of the party from governmental websites should be sufficient evidence for the party's existence, but to answer your request completely, I have also added an interview of the party, during a protest, by an israeli financial newspaper called globes, which is one of the most prominent of those, proving the party's existnece and activity. If you have any more complaints, please send me a messege on a talk page, and I will take measures to cast them aside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeisraeli ( talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Registered party but did not participate in any past election nor hold any seats/posts. The sole independent coverage I found was this rather bonkers legal motion to electoral commission to disqualify most of the current MKs from running in the next elections - which was rejected out of hand on procedural grounds (the motion wasn't filed at the right time) - but had a snowball's chance also if filed correctly. In short - doesn't pass WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Sources in the article are mainly not independent or pre-date the party and cover the founder (and there aren't all that many of those). Icewhiz ( talk) 10:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    Note that the hewiki entry was also created quite recently also by Zeisraeli (the English seems to be a translation of the Hebrew). I initiated a notability discussion on hewiki on this article (mileage there may vary - hewiki differs notability wise from enwiki - lots of SNGs (some tougher than enwiki, some more lenient)). Icewhiz ( talk) 10:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

POV - Icewhiz, on claim of rather bonkers legal motion. I have two more third party interviews regarding the matter which I will shortly add, and from reading the wikipedia rulebook, such third party prespectives are point on which an article is decided as relevent or not. One interview is by a respected journalist, and the other by the former maneger of Kol Israel - one of the most prominnent redio channels in Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeisraeli ( talk • contribs) 11:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

I assert that "bonkers" is the appropriate term for the legal motion (which was rejected out of hand due to procedural reasons, but would've been rejected anyway even if filed in a timely fashion) - as a one word summary of the coverage in Maariv. The legal motion was not bonkers in the sense that it was bonkers enough to generate some press for this otherwise un-covered party (all be it - such coverage was mainly on the bonkers claim - but something is better than nothing). Icewhiz ( talk) 11:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
a person who calles a legel document "Bonkers" without having studied it is indeed bonckers, and you are also practicing Independent research and vicious personal Point Of View attacks, which not based on said maariv article. I therefore raise a worry about your personal interests, and requests you reveal any COI, or refrain from expressing derogatory and heavily biased claims.-- Zeisraeli ( talk) 16:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The commission's response per Maariv is self explanatory. As for COI on my end - I do have a working knowledge of Israeli politics. The first I've heard of "Me and You - The Israeli People's Party" is in this AfD, I have no relation to this party nor to any of its (broadly construed) competing parties. I did initiate a hewiki notability discussion after this AfD begun - however that is not a COI. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Stefka Bulgaria and talk are making an utter mess of engwiki policy. To begin with, a proper interview,such as these were , consists of an Interviewer and interviewee, the first states his position and the latter Cross-examins him, makes a conclusion and asks for clarifications - the first is a primery source, and the latter a secondery because he is also a independent commentator. As for the reliability of interviewers in question - The former Manager of Kol Israel is interviwing him on a news website, and is not retired. The women who is interviewing him is a commentator on prime israeli news channels, and therefore both have credibility. As it were, may I remind you both that wikipedia asks for only one third party source to make an subject notable, and I have provided three (another 5 minute on globes)-- Zeisraeli ( talk) 16:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete obvious WP:PROMO lacking notability per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 22:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep While I'm concerned about the WP:PROMO and WP:COI concerns, a registered political party would meet WP:NPOL in my eyes. Bkissin ( talk) 17:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply

- General notability guideline ( for clarification):

  • Significant coverage : Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material: Israeli newspaper globes publishes coverage of a demonstration, a quarter of which is an interview of the party\ two complete interviews dedicated solely to the party.
  • Reliable: sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability... When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint: All intervieweres are established journalists in israel (for example Tami Mulad on israel's national news channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvMhVFTcZ7M), and therefore are to be considered reliable.
  • Sources: should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability...They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them: this is exactly what is done in the interviewes as stated before in the disscusion (they ask questions, interpet and comment on the answer). No where is it written that secondery sources can't be interviews, if they are not simply a press release.
  • Independent of the subject: excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it: The refrenced journalists are not known to be affiliated with the party.
  • Presumed: if the article violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information then it should not be a wikipedia article ( it should not be a Summary-only descriptions of works, Lyrics databases, Excessive listings of unexplained statistics, Exhaustive logs of software updates): it is not any of these, therefore, it is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
    therefore, the party is to be objectively considered notable - Q.E.D  — Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
Zeisraeli (
talk • 
contribs) 
18:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
    • It is also worthwhile noting that, in Israel, party registration and election registration are separate - not all registered parties run. In this case this party has not been registered (yet) to run in any elections. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply
      It is also worthwhile noting that, in Israel, parties only register when elections begin, and no party is registered (yet) to run in any elections.-- 2.55.33.225 ( talk) 05:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Nom. I note that no notable persons are in this party (a new party formed by major public figures might be notable.) Coverage appears NOT to be in major media. And No one in this endless discussion disputes the fact that this new political party had not gotten any candidates elected. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Note - the hewiki entry (linked Talk) was deleted today following a notability discussion on the page there (no deletion vote, as there was a clear consensus (sole objector was the creator) in the notability discussion (different procedure over there - in hewiki one tags notability, discusses on the talk page, and there is a vote only if there is disagreement)). Icewhiz ( talk) 12:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Winning a Grammy satisfies WP:NALBUM. (non-admin closure) Ifnord ( talk) 03:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

I Remember Warsaw

I Remember Warsaw (  | 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:NALBUM: nothing to be found about this album in Discogs, billboard, the 28th Grammy awards (which this supposedly won the best polka recording, article says Frank Yankovic for 70 Years of Hits), and nothing on web search. – eggofreason talk 20:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Jemeker Thompson

Jemeker Thompson (  | 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:CRIMEBIO. Sheldybett ( talk) 00:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 01:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 01:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 01:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Strong keep. She was the subject of newspaper articles in St. Louis at the time of her conviction but also she was noted as a teenager in Mississippi for her track-and-field records, plus her sterling school attendance record. All this, plus her book, makes her worthy of inclusion. https://www.newspapers.com/search/#query=jemeker+thompson&dr_year=1947-2010&offset=4 BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 18:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Here's the story of her arrest, in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: https://www.newspapers.com/image/140010222/?terms=jemeker%2Bthompson BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 21:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 21:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • delete I tried to source it using Proquest news archive But her book got only a review in Kirkus (which reviews pretty much all trade books the publisher is promoting) and a single review in a local newspaper. there was also a documentary about her on TV, but it gets only a couple of mere mentions in the media. Feel free to ping me to revisit if somebody adds persuasive, WP:RS - I'm always to change my opinion when presented with sources, but Ive looked and I'm not finding enough. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 01:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, notable. Sources are available - just needs a little love. - 208.81.148.195 ( talk) 21:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Can you point us to some of those sources? I ask because an article in the local daily paper covering her arrest does not carry her past WP:SIGCOV. And neither the book, or the documentary drew enough attention to pass WP:GNG.
  • The documentary itself is a reasonable source to use in expanding and supporting the article. There was also considerable coverage of her arrest and trial in the Alton Telegraph, a St. Louis-area daily currently owned by Hearst. - 208.81.148.195 ( talk) 17:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • The question at issue in this discussion is notability. Clearly Thompson self-promotes by writing a book and being(strike and revise) consenting to be portrayed in a documentary, but the documentary has drawn so little attention that, like the memoir, it offers little support for notability. It is admirable when someone like Thompson with a misspent youth, gets it together to launch a new life, in this case, as a preacher. But it may not make them notable by Wikipedia standards. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Fair enough. But the point here is that there is only one source on the page that even mentions her name in connection with "Drug Lords" (a non bluelinked, short-lived Nexflix series that - I searched, - got almost no coverage at all .) The sole source - already on the page - that I have found that mentions her as being part of this show is one that names her along with two or three other interviewees in a single sentence, a mere listing that is part of a very, very long list of TV programs scheduled for broadcast that week. What I have now made several good faith searches for - and NOT FOUND - are sources that support notability. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
"Dubbed Queen Pin by the DEA" she's the topic of an episode of For my man TV show, season 4 episode 6.-- the eloquent peasant ( talk) 01:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply
SFGate https://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/the-wrap/article/Narcos-Renewed-Which-Drug-Lords-Belong-on-9208161.php mentions her.-- the eloquent peasant ( talk) 02:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply
NYTimes mention of Thompson reads, in full: "Jemeker Thompson, a Los Angeles cocaine dealer turned evangelical minister." Little Brown is the publisher; it's not a review, it's promotion. "Dubbed Queen Pin by the DEA" is IMDB. This documentary isn't SIGCOV unless a secondary, WP:RS discusses it. Bht SFGate article is SIGCOV . It reads: "But not every major drug lord is male. Take, for example, Jemeker Thompson, a.k.a. “The Queen Pin.” In 1980s Los Angeles, crack-cocaine was an in-demand drug, and Thompson became one of the top suppliers. Eventually, she was arrested in 1993 and served 13 years in prison, during which she had a religious awakening. She now works as an evangelical minister and has released a memoir about the life she left behind. You can watch her interview with CBS Los Angeles here." Perhaps, together with review of her book and the old article about her arrest suffice. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 18:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Karan Nath

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

Clear fail of WP:GNG if not WP:NACTOR. The only reference in the article says he is working on a home production(!) as part of his comeback. — C.Fred ( talk) 18:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello. Can you clarify what "clear fail of WP:GNG if not WP:NACTOR" mean? Does the subject - from your perspective - fail NACTOR? Thanks and regards, Biwom ( talk) 20:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have added some information about his roles in each film. As he has starred in 5 films which are notable enough to have Wikipedia entries, it would seem he would meet WP:NACTOR. The article does need more sources, but that is not a reason for deleting it. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 01:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete-A significant role in a single film (and I can halfheartedly allot another). I fail to spot any coverage resemblant with GNG apart from some interviews to entertainment-periodicals as a newbie lead who faded from the scene, soon thereafter. ∯WBG converse 20:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As I said in my comment above, he has starred - ie had the lead role, and been the first-named actor, in not one but five films, from 2001-2009. He clearly meets WP:NACTOR. I do not know what the reference meant by saying "Karan will make a comeback with his home production 'Guns of Banaras' ", but it's definitely not a home movie. The director is Sekhar Suri, and the other lead actors include Nathalia Kaur and Vinod Khanna. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 03:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 18:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 14:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Deirdre Eberly Lashgari

Deirdre Eberly Lashgari (  | 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 enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, and she doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 15:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 18:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 18:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for academics. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable academic. Fails WP:PROF. Also, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC) will revisit. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep #1 of WP:ACADEMIC is "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Under Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics is the point "For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases one can also look at how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries (this information is available in Worldcat) when evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied." Lashgari's book Violence, Silence, and Anger: Women's Writing as Transgression (1995) is held by 469 libraries, according to Worldcat. The Other Voice: Women's Poetry in Translation (1976) is in 712 libraries, Women Poets of The World is in 281. (I think it is very significant that books from 1976 and 1995 have not been deaccessioned, and are still in so many libraries.) WP:ACADEMIC #4 is "The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions." The article says (at the end of the section Works - very badly placed, it should be in the lead para): "Her pioneering work and leading contributions changed the literary curriculum at Berkeley and other institutes and universities in the United States of America and has normalized the presence of women's voices and writings as part of the syllabus in such departments." The reference for that is an obituary in The New York Times and Claremont Courier. So there is definitely evidence that she meets WP:ACADEMIC. The article could be improved to better show that, but that is not a reason for deleting it. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 16:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per RebeccaGreen. Uninvited Company 20:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per sources found by RebeccaGreen. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Sources show sufficient notability. -- Michig ( talk) 07:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As noted in the discussion, the best solution here is to start the article from scratch. Tone 19:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Bruno Colmant

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

Unable to determine if notable with terrible references with supposed heavyweight. Fails WP:ACADEMIC, WP:BIO. Heavy awards also, but no refs. scope_creep Talk 13:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Bears all the hallmarks of an undisclosed CoI article which probably qualifies as a G11 candidate. Colmant has published some papers, but they have not been cited by many, and judging by his page, I doubt he meets WP:NBIO or WP:ACADEMIC. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 14:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - WP:BEFORE revealed published papers, but without many cites and nothing that would be ground-breaking. A WorldCat search revealed many books, with the most popular being stocked in 47 libraries, almost all in France. Some parts of the article definitely read like a promotion, the Media section of the article in particular catching my eye. Could be worth an article but would need to start over. DeniedClub ❯❯❯ talk? 08:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Matias Viegener

Matias Viegener (  | 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:AUTHOR and WP:BIO. The book seems to be more famous than the Matias Viegener, the author. No real coverage per WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep Talk 13:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 18:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 18:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. Consensus that he fails notability but could meet it in the near future. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 16:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Damir Ismagulov

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

Subject is an MMA Fighter. Fails WP:NMMA notability requirements. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 14:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 14:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 14:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 14:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per nominator. PRehse ( talk) 10:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It's true he fails to meet WP:NMMA. However, his victory last night in his first UFC fight almost guarantees he'll get at least two more fights with them--barring injury, suspension, or similar event. I understand that's WP:CRYSTALBALL, but it's why I'm hesitant to vote delete on someone who I think is likely to be notable relatively soon. If I was forced to make a decision, I'd have to vote delete at this time but I was thinking it might be better to put it into draft space instead of deleting it. Papaursa ( talk) 19:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Inter&#38|Papaursa|PRehse Thank you for your comments and interest in this article AfD. I understand the reason behind of draftifing the page instead of deletion. I have drafting a few pages before in the past. However, the reason to nominationn for AfD instead of draftiying is that for the fighter to meet the WP:NMMA means the fighter needs to fight another 2 more fights provided their contract is not less than 3 fights. A draft would only stays in the system for 6 months before it is deleted which means not only the subject need be booked and fought 2 more fights within next six months provided the subject and their opponent do not pulled out due to injuries before the fights and the medical suspension after a fight is in its minimum duration. All this is WP:CRYSTALBALL and we know that in the fight game, anything could happen even on the fight day. Secondly, if a dratified page moves back to main space by confirmed user, we can not re dratify as as the "draft" copy of the small subject is existed and we still need to get back to AfD process. It is much easy to recreate the page when NMMA is met as we the reveiwer just nee to click check on the review button.
I truly believe an editor create a fighter article without the knowledge of the WP:NMMA requirements and I am one of them where I have created a few fighter articles when I started joining Wikipedia family before I found out there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts and WP:NMMA requirements. The things here is "consistency" applying WP:NMMA. Since the guidelines have been set and if we dont apply them consistently and allowing one article to draftied the the other to be AfD deleted, then we would face editors stating our biasness and setting a case for them to attack the guidelines. If a page fighter page fails WP:NMMA and has not been AfD and allows the fighter meets the WP:NMMA which most likely it will happen that is another things. Since there are only a handful of gate keepers in MMA project in AfD, I hope to reach an understanding of agreement in consistency for I would not want to AfD a page where it is not call for or it is not the practice of of following WP:NMMA guidelines for I do not want to have a misunderstanding or work against each other since we are a small group here in AfD MMA. All I want is collaboration and work in good will. I have give my 2c and I need to know where we stand. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 09:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 12:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Funding Options

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

promotional article--the references are either general references on Designated Funding portals, or mere mentions, press releases. or promotional interviews -- see WP:NCORP. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

I am raising an objection to this proposed deletion. This proposal for deletion has been prompted as a result of a draft article submitted by me relating to Alternative Business Funding (ABF), the originator of the three current UK government designated portals. This content was subject to speedy deletion by DGG who, as a result of my appeal against that deletion, has now reviewed Funding Options for deletion as well. At this stage I simply wish to register the objection. I will add further comment once I have had time to prepare a reasoned argument for this objection. Casius12 ( talk) 11:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply

K.e.coffman It seems we are going round this circle again. Please see the discussion that is talking place with User:DGG regarding this page and Alternative Business Funding as a result of your original deletion decision. This has not yet been resolved and both decisions are linked. Casius12 ( talk) 17:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 19:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Noah Carl

Noah Carl (  | 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:ACADEMIC and WP:1E. A very junior academic (a postdoc, in fact) who does not satisfy the notability guideline for academics and whose notability really comes from one single event. Atchom ( talk) 04:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 04:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 04:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 04:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:BASIC. Seriously, look at the references: three separate instances of WP:SIGCOV for separate incidents in reliable sources over a year 1 2 3. The fact that one of them was front-page news doesn't mean the others don't count - in fact the latest incident in which he was consider notable (the letter) is a result of previous incidents in which he was considered notable (his controversial research activities, speaking at the London conference) and is therefore not actually a single incident per se. FOARP ( talk) 08:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
PS - can I just point out how unhelpful this delete proposal is? In no particular order:
1) There's no sign that WP:BEFORE was performed.
2) There's no attempt to engage with the other events discussed on the page. In the proposer's view these apparently don't meet the criteria for notability, but they haven't stated why when that was obviously a topic that would come up here.
3) The proposer has stated that this is a BLP based on a single event. Per policy the normal solution to that is merge/redirect/rename to a page discussing the event, not delete as a first step - but no reason for going straight to delete was given, or potential merge/redirect target proposed as an alternative solution.
4) No attempt at tagging the page with a notability notice first to allow a chance to improve it.
Imagine I was a new editor and this was my first article - would this encourage me to engage with Wiki further? FOARP ( talk) 10:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir ( talk) 22:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm sorry that the article creator feels that way, so I feel I should elaborate. Firstly, I don't think it is in dispute that the person in question is an academic, so WP:ACADEMIC applies. The subject of the article fails all 9 possible notability criteria as set out by the article, which isn't surprising given that he is merely a postdoc, and a new one at that.
Of course, the article can then still be saved under the general notability guidelines. Now, there is no disagreement that the recent coverage of the person (because of the attempt to get him fired) has attracted considerable coverage. However, WP:1E would require that there should be coverage of the person not in relation to this particular event.
Of the two other sources FOARP cites above, one is an article by the Guardian about some research he and others published which quotes him. That's not coverage of the subject of the biography, but coverage of the research with a quote from the person. Academics routinely provide quotes to the media, and there is absolutely nothing about Carl in the Guardian piece. As to the New Statesman article, it mentions him as one of many who went to a controversial conference in London. Again, this does not constitute "significant coverage" under WP:SIGCOV, and neither changes the fact that his notability is essentially derived from one event.
Atchom ( talk) 22:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • comment The New Statesman coverage amounts to two long paragraphs and in my view rises to the level of WP:SIGCOV. Here they are in full:
"Our investigation into the London Conference on Intelligence uncovered the involvement of at least 40 academics from at least 29 different universities in 15 different countries. Among these was the Oxford academic Noah Carl, a postdoctoral researcher in the social sciences at Nuffield College, who has spoken twice at the London Conference on Intelligence. Carl has also written several papers for Emil Kirkegaard’s OpenPsych, which include two looking at whether larger Muslim populations make Islamist terrorism more likely, and one suggesting that British stereotypes towards immigrants are “largely accurate”.
One external reviewer responded to the last paper by stating that: “It is never OK to publish research this bad, even in an inconsequential online journal.” Nevertheless, the paper was featured by conservative US website The Daily Caller, under a picture of Nigel Farage’s “Breaking Point” poster. The far right European Free West Media cited the paper to claim that “criminal elements are represented by certain ethnic groups”, and on the blog of a far-right French presidential candidate under the headline “Study validates prejudices”. It even ended up on InfoWars, one of the most popular news websites in the USA, and can be found circulating on far-right corners of Reddit. The fact that Carl is linked to Oxford University was mentioned frequently in the coverage, providing legitimacy to the political opinions presented."
I believe this section rises to WP:SIGCOV since Carl is not merely mentioned in passing in a long list of people but is described with his research in some depth, as well as the way he serves to legitimise certain views. This meets the requirement that the reference "addresses the topic directly and in detail" - it talks directly about him and discusses details of who he is and what his significance is.
Inherent in the most recent event (the letter) is that there were previous events which were also notable (i.e., the activities that the letter complains about). These previous events were also reported in reliable sources (e.g., the New Statesman). Even if you don't think that the NS ref was WP:SIGCOV then the coverage of the letter also acts as coverage of the same events that the New Statesman reports (i.e., two separate events).
Finally, if you believe this to be a WP:1E situation then why are you proposing deletion? FOARP ( talk) 06:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Atchom, did you see the list of sources I compiled in the talk page? There's a lot of stuff, most of which is related to the ongoing event, but it's very likely that Carl will be in the media again as soon as his interview ban is lifted, or if he gets fired. So seems pointless to delete this page based on WP:1E only to have to recreate it in a few days. It makes more sense to just expand it and add more sources as they come out. Deleet ( talk) 01:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Atchom: I assume you wanted to reference FOARP as I haven't actually contributed to this discussion. PriceDL ( talk) 01:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Yes, sorry. Corrected above. Atchom ( talk) 03:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
This is true, and also why I am abstaining from voting or editing mainspace here. Deleet ( talk) 20:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Mr. Kirkegaard, commenting here really doesn't help anything. FOARP ( talk) 09:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply
WP:FRINGE is not grounds for deletion but instead rules how fringe theories should be handled in articles. This article is not about a fringe theory but about an academic whose work may amount to fringe theories. Plenty of cranks and flim-flam artists are worthy of coverage in an encyclopedic article. Encyclopedic coverage does not imply any endorsement of the subject - often quite the opposite since it is the degree to which the subject if wrong that is often the reason for their notability. WP:ACADEMIC is not the relevant standard here since it is not really his contribution to the academic field per se that is the reason for his notability, but instead the controversies around him, WP:BASIC is the appropriate standard, and since he is notable for more than one event (I count at least three - his research, the London Conference, and the letter - all reported in reliable sources) he meets that standard. FOARP ( talk) 06:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Bpesta22, would you care to explain why you believe that Carl is notable enough for an article? IntoThinAir ( talk) 15:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Is significant coverage of his activities, and then the letter complaining of them, not sufficient? FOARP ( talk) 16:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC) reply
It seems like coverage of his current situation will be ongoing; his other research has been covered elsewhere (by reliable sources), and the London Conference thing was also covered by the media. All these combined led me to vote "keep." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpesta22 ( talk • contribs) 13:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 12:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America 1000 03:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Shigure Sohma

Shigure Sohma (  | 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 WP:GNG and is primarily just unsourced fan WP:OR. I found no information in a WP:BEFORE search I did that he is notable outside of the manga/anime universe he inhabits. His entry on the List of Fruits Basket characters is sufficient for Wikipedia, as he is not notable on his own. Most Fruits Basket character articles (including this one), were created by the same long inactive fan-editor in 2005 and were eliminated about 10 years ago for lack of notability. Newshunter12 ( talk) 03:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 08:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 08:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 10:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 12:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America 1000 03:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Yuki Sohma

Yuki Sohma (  | 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 WP:GNG and is primarily just unsourced fan WP:OR. I found no information in a WP:BEFORE search I did that he is notable outside of the manga/anime universe he inhabits. His entry on the List of Fruits Basket characters is sufficient for Wikipedia, as he is not notable on his own. Most Fruits Basket character articles (including this one), were created by the same long inactive fan-editor in 2005 and were eliminated about 10 years ago for lack of notability. Newshunter12 ( talk) 03:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 08:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 08:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 10:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 12:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 13:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

David Keddie

David Keddie (  | 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 was PRODded because the subject failed WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. I removed the PROD because I thought the Scottish Second Division was at the time fully professional, which meant he would have passed the subject-specific guideline. My rationale was queried so I raised the question at WT:FOOTY where a more knowledgeable editor confirmed that it was in fact not fully pro at that time. Procedure says the PROD can't be restored, so here we are. Struway2 ( talk) 12:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 ( talk) 12:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 12:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 12:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 12:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Aoziwe ( talk) 12:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Marilynn Hughes

Marilynn Hughes (  | 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 believe this individual meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Most, if not all, of her books have been self-published and the citations in her article are not to reliable, independent sources. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 18:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 18:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 23:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Seattle Eagle

Seattle Eagle (  | 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 indication of notability to pass WP:NCORP. WP:Run-of-the-mill gay bar with no distinguishing characteristics. Routine coverage and business listings in the local alt-weekly does not make it notable. Reywas92 Talk 23:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per WP:GNG. User:Reywas92 has nominated several articles for deletion at once, so now I have to scramble to find sources for multiple subjects, but I believe there's sufficient coverage for an article. There are now 11 references in the article, and I've not even searched newspaper archives, local or otherwise. Sure, more sources are needed to help flesh out this article, but I believe there's a story to be told here about Seattle's oldest leather bar and longest operating gay bar. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 01:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 06:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Gay bars don't need "distinguishing characteristics" to be notable enough for Wikipedia articles, they just need enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. I'll grant that Another Believer did once undertake a misguided project of trying to start a single-sourced stub about every single gay bar that got blurbed in one isolated listicle — but they clearly learned from that, because they're trying much harder to source gay bars properly now and I've never been able to identify any serious problems with their work on gay bars since then. Bearcat ( talk) 20:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I agree with the rationale of the nominator. This establishment does not pass WP:GNG. Carajou ( talk) 03:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Some of the sources in the article now have quite short references to this bar, but there are probably enough to meet WP:GNG. I found a few that aren't yet included in the article, too, from the Seattle Weekly [3], [4], though they might be considered local. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 03:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Cesdeva  (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Sivananda yoga

Sivananda yoga (  | 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. Fails WP:GNG miserably, despite superficial appearances ($$$). Previous AfD here. Article link. Cesdeva  (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn in light of the sources produced. Cesdeva  (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cesdeva  (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 18:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, this is one of the major modern schools of "hatha yoga", as important as Iyengar Yoga, Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga and Bikram Yoga for example. May I remind everyone that notability depends not on the content of an article but on the existence of multiple reliable sources in the world, and there are plenty for this school of yoga. I will note also that today is a poor time for AfD discussion as many of us are going on holiday very shortly, so plenty of time should be allowed. However, Sivananda Yoga is recognised in neutral academic history books like Singleton, Mark (2010). Yoga body : the origins of modern posture practice. Oxford University Press. pp. 104, 135–137, 152, 216, 219. ISBN  978-0-19-539534-1. OCLC  318191988.; by the respected hatha yoga publication Yoga Journal, e.g. Jones 2007 (and many more YJ articles); by fitness sites such as Very Well Fit; by academic ethnography books like Laurah E. Klepinger's Sivananda Yoga in the West: An Experimental Autoethnography, from Los Angeles to South India and Back; and in academic religious studies (which are many) such as Suzanne Newcombe's The Revival of Yoga in Contemporary India. Newcombe puts it succinctly:

Sivananda’s vision of yoga was eclectic, offering varying definitions of “self-realization,” “God-realization” and “realizing the Immortal Atman” as the purpose of yogic striving. His literature emphasized meditation practices over āsana, but āsana became a stronger part of the Sivananda lineage over time. Although not directly agitating for independence, Sivananda supported the idealization of Gandhi as a model yogi. In many ways, Sivananda continued Vivekananda’s categories of yoga, with Sarah Strauss arguing that Sivananda’s injunctions to “Serve, Love, Meditate, Realise” roughly parallel Vivekananda’s four paths of yoga. Sivananda’s disciples, particularly Swami Vishnudevananda (1927–1993) who settled in Montreal, Canada, in 1959 and helped establish a global following, oversaw the opening of Sivananda Yoga Centres worldwide. The Bihar School of Yoga founded in 1964 by another of Sivananda’s disciples, Swami Satyananda Saraswati (1923–2009) also achieved an influential position both within India and internationally.

— Suzanne Newcombe, 2017
In short, a wide range of different types of source, both academic and practical, independent of Sivananda, cover the system in detail. In addition, a large number of books and websites direct people who wish to practise yoga to the many Sivananda Yoga centres around the world, and thousands of fitness clubs and gymnasiums follow the school's guidance. The article needs work (so did all the other yoga articles I've edited) but that is not a matter for AfD. This is a key component of modern hatha yoga, recognised as such in multiple academic and practical disciplines, and it is a vital component of Wikipedia's coverage of the domain. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 11:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Fair enough. Cesdeva  (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 13:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Convergence acceleration by the Ford-Sidi W(m) algorithm

Convergence acceleration by the Ford-Sidi W(m) algorithm (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As claimed in the article this is a "proposal" and so constitutes original research. Also not a sufficiently notable topic. The Ford-Sidi algorithm alone is not notable, and we don't list it at List_of_algorithms#Interpolation_and_extrapolation. It follows that this proposed direct application of the Ford-Sidi W(m) algorithm is not notable. Pontificalibus 08:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I have rarely if ever come across another article with so many reasons for being unsuitable for Wikipedia. Here are just a few of the reasons. (1) The Ford-Sidi algorithm certainly appears to be notable, and the Ford-Sidi W(m) algorithm may or may not be the same thing (if not then it probably isn't notable: my Google search turned up only 6 hits); however, this is not an article about that algorithm: it is about an investigation by some unnamed person (referred to in the article as "we") into convergence of that algorithm. It is original research, with no evidence anywhere of having been published or mentioned anywhere else. There is no evidence of notability. (2) Even if the subject were notable, this article would be totally unsuitable, as it simply launches into the middle of its topic without providing any context or explanation of what it refers to, so that readers will not actually know what it is about. (3) It is written as a personal essay, in which someone (referred to in the article as "we") repeatedly "proposes" a particular method, which is to say advocates or promotes it, and also gives an account of why he/she/they think that method is good, i.e it expresses a point of view. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 17:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is clear consensus that this character does not require a standalone article. I will note in passing that I am baffled about why the encyclopedic information about this character is hosted at Dumbledore's Army, rather than at List of Harry Potter characters, as would be usual; but that does not affect the outcome here. Vanamonde ( talk) 12:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Neville Longbottom (Fictional Character)

Neville Longbottom (Fictional Character) (  | 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's content already at Dumbledore's Army#Neville Longbottom ‑‑ V.S.( C)( T) 08:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

These are all reasons why he should have his own article, he was a really important character in the Movie/book. he could have been the hero of the story, in an alternative time line he is the hero. I honestly think that he is very important and thats why he should have his own page. In honor of Neville Longbottom Moeelmekkawy ( talk) 01:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I made this article so people that don't know anything about Neville can understand everything about him not just a brief of what his importance of his role in the Movie/book. the way his section in dumbledore's army only people that know of harry potter will understand what is seeing said Moeelmekkawy ( talk) 01:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Moeelmekkawy, to get an article on Wikipedia, a topic must meet our requirements for " Notability". The article you've made doesn't contain any secondary sources which are specifically about Neville (note that Wikia is not reliable as anyone can edit it). The other problem is that Wikipedia articles cannot only be plot summaries; an article on Neville would need to discuss the character's real-world impact—and again, this would need to be sourced to reliable, independent, secondary sources. — Bilorv (c) (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply
As I pointed out above, Moeelmekkawy, this isn't relevant to the way Wikipedia works. We have notability criteria to define what is suitable for an encyclopedia; other websites such as Wikia are more suited to fandom content like this. — Bilorv (c) (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I believe that this article contains much more context that is very helpful for those who might not know who Neville Longbottom is. Respectively I believe that taking down this article would only do harm for their is no other vase knowledge about him that you could find on the wikipedia most are just snippets of his traits when here it is a almost biography like of his importance in the novel and how key his character was in Harry Potter. While the other articles just seem to glance over him. Omaredits ( talk) 21:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC) — Omaredits ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Comment This, IMO, should not stay as an article on its own, but still much of the content should be moved to other articles. Redirecting to Dumbledore's Army#Neville Longbottom or any other similar place could be viable. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 19:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
We could move any valuable content to Dumbledore's Army#Neville Longbottom and delete the rest. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 20:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment that not my point creating the article, one of the reasons is that Neville played an important role in Harry Potter series and he deserves to have his own article. if you think he didn't play a major role in Harry Potter please explain. Moeelmekkawy ( talk) 20:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The WP:NAF essay informs us that there is currently no clear consensus as to how notability affects fictional topics. We have to turn to the WP:FICTION essay, which suggests we consider that individually non-notable elements of a fictional work (such as characters and episodes) may be grouped into an appropriate list article. (Emphasis in the original.) In this, we're advised to take into account WP:GNG and WP:NOT (and, of course, MOS:WAF, for the technical stuff). The crux here are the general-notability guidelines; the subject deserves an article of its own if and only if it passes the WP:GNG hurdle. - The Gnome ( talk) 11:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Michig ( talk) 13:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Blue Springs Police Department

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

There is not much WP:RS about this department other than spurious incidents such as [7] [8] [9]. No real WP:RS in the article. Has had tag about needing better referencing for six years. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 08:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

The first article appears to count towards notability (if it is acceptable WP:RS), but if this is all we have, it makes more sense to put that in Militarization of police. The others ones (about a crime map and the purchase of two motorcycles) is as trivial (and only of interest to those of the community) as the examples I gave.
My biggest concern is the lengthy article has much information and no sources to back it up--and I am not expecting any will be forthcoming. Hence, WP:TNT might apply. Rather than WP:TNT, I would be okay with moving the article to draft space until all the non-referenceable material is deleted -and- notability is also established.
As for WP:GEOLAND, Blue Springs, Missouri already has an article. I don't follow the argument about the police department being a "place". -- David Tornheim ( talk) 19:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The WP:GEOLAND point is because the BSPD has an inhabited jurisdictional area, it's not the strongest point though - that's the existence of significant coverage in RSs. FOARP ( talk) 12:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
@ BabbaQ: Huh? Which of these five resources do you claim meets our standard of reliable WP:SECONDARY?
  1. Bureau, U.S. Census. "American FactFinder - Search". factfinder.census.gov. Retrieved 2018-02-07.
  2. "Police Department | City of Blue Springs, MO - Official Website". www.bluespringsgov.com. Retrieved 2018-02-07.
  3. Media, Mile By Mile. "Blue Springs Police Dept in Blue Springs Missouri". www.road-police.com. Retrieved 2018-02-07.
  4. "IAFC Volunteer and Combination Officers Section - VCOS" (PDF). www.vcos.org. Retrieved 2018-02-07.
  5. BSPD Official Website - Organization
-- David Tornheim ( talk) 17:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup There are literally thousands of newspaper articles to sort through to improve this article (available in a news archives) and hundreds that have SIGCOV. I added a tiny handful of sources, but, frankly Deletion is not cleanup and I am happy to leave this as yet another undersourced, inadequate article on a notable topic in need of an editor. Just an an example of what is out there, however, anyone remember the moral panic over Goth subculture? Well, during that panic, the U.S. Congress earmarked a "$273,000 federal grant that U.S. Rep. Sam Graves had procured to study goth culture in Blue Springs, Missouri." George Bush fils wanted the money back to use for Pell Grants. The sutdy discovered that 35 kids at the high school were dressing Goth. Congressman Graves told a reporter that "They're doing self-mutilation, animal sacrifices, the sort of violent behavior and drug use that possibly could lead up to what happened at Columbine in 1999 with Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris." And this police dept became the poster child not only of a national moral panic but of a national funding debate. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete. North America 1000 04:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Junhel Dalanon

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

Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. According to Google Scholar, the subject has an h-index of 1, which is not enough to meet WP:NACADEMIC. Given that the subject appears to have worked in a rather niche field (development of dentistry in the Philippines), I would not be opposed to draftifying the article, but the article's initial creator does not appear to be active and I didn't wan to risk the article being sent to the draftspace dustbin without anyone seeing it. signed, Rosguill talk 19:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost ( talk) 07:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Those arguing to keep this have not demonstrated that the subject forms a cohesive whole that is clearly distinct from Silent letter and several other articles. I would be happy to refund this to the userspace of anyone who wishes to work on it further, or who wishes to develop content towards a merger. Vanamonde ( talk) 12:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Silent English alphabet

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

Article appears to be mostly original research based on a single source. Most of the claimed "silent" letters are actually part of dipthongs or digraphs. BilCat ( talk) 07:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • As the person who put up the page originally, I can confirm that there is no original research here, just material put together from the main cited source and other websites where I found related information. I didn't cite them all because I thought a page only required a minimum of one citation-- I see lots of pages with only one source. I have no connection to the source, it was just something I came across and thought should be on Wikipedia. I am very interested in alphabets (like the Cockney alphabet or the military alphabet), and I know I'm not alone in this, and it struck me that this was exactly the kind of thing I go looking for on Wikipedia. Like the List of names in English with counterintuitive pronunciations, which also links from the Silent letter page. It seemed a courtesy to Wikipedia users to make a separate list-like page rather than make the Silent letter page any longer by adding more examples.That said, I don't have a strong stake in how this goes down because I don't really understand the rationale for taking down a page that is properly sourced, that has been up since 2016, and that seems to have attracted a lot of interest in the form of edits. Valli Nagy 22:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
The main problem is that, as a whole, the article is Original Research and Synthesis. The initial sourced content could probably be a paragraph in another article, such as Silent letter, but I haven't checked that article to see if it would be appropriate, or if it's even there already. What you have done with this article is started with a concept, and then apparently did your own research to put together your own list. That is OR and synthesis. It may be interesting, and even fun, but it's not really encyclopedic, and I doubt a such a list ever will be. I'm not addressing whether or not the articles you copied the format are properly sourced or encyclopedic either, as that's not relevant to this discussion. My hunch is that they aren't. - BilCat ( talk) 07:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost ( talk) 07:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Silent letter already exists; this page simply lists examples. Cnilep ( talk) 02:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete i googled but it isn't returning anything instructive, notability isn't established in my mind. This may be OR or a word game I can't find. Szzuk ( talk) 20:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Rename. I have rewritten the article to focus on the historical reasons for widespread use of silent letters in English. I believe it should be renamed to allow users to find it. The proposed name is TBD. More than four sources have been added. I paired down the number of examples per letter with the goal of eliminating any diphthongs as silent letters. The remaining examples are taken from the Merriam-Webster reference, except as noted, and also except Milngavie which came from Wikipedia. Handkerchief is from the Merriam-Webster reference list. The remaining digraphs appear to result in one of the letters being truly silent. I look forward to your interpretations. I believe this should be associated with the silent letter article because this list points out the totality of silent letter use in English. The list also belongs in the category Lists of English words with uncommon properties. Regarding notability, I have found similar lists of words on websites by the Oxford University Press, Slippery Rock University, the ELT (English Language Teaching) Journal, and Merriam-Webster (the last two are sources of this article). In addition, there are a half dozen or so ESL and other teaching websites with lists such as this one. Overjive ( talk) 09:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as it stands the article does not make it obvious that it is based on a subset of American English. Readers from outside the US, particularly if non-native speakers, will be mislead or puzzled by some of the words included. It is highly contrived; for instance "v" which relies on a Scots word and a pronunciation of 5d/5p which is unknown outside the US. You would do better to apply some of the research to the main Silent letter page as an illustration rather than this stand alone page. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 10:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply
I modified the article to further highlight the use of US spelling and pronunciation in the list. You mention "a pronunciation of 5d/5p", and I have not been able to track down what the meaning of that. Is there a URL (or other info) that would clarify that description? Also, the article for Milngavie uses UK spelling, so if there is a more suitable pronunciation I will note that on the talk page of that article. Cheers, Overjive ( talk) 05:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC) reply
"5d" is the pre-decimal way of writing five pence, "5p" is the post-decimal way. Since you don't use pennies (as an official name at least) in the US, one assumes you were thinking of the UK currency unit. I can assure you that the "v" is definitely pronounced. The article on Milngavie may use English spelling, as does that on Beijing, but neither name is an English word. Using foreign words to illustrate English silent letters seems to me, at leat, to be a poor example. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 10:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Warhawk (Rex Stewart)

Warhawk (Rex Stewart) (  | 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 a notable character. Has made no appearances outside of the DC Animated Universe. The article has no secondary sources. There is no out of universe information in the article. JDDJS ( talk) 22:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost ( talk) 07:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Per G7. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 14:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Naman Ambavi

Naman Ambavi (  | 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 web developer / designer / entrepeneur / student. Fails to meet specific notability guidelines for biographies or the general notability guideline. No sources of any note found during due diligence. Jack Frost ( talk) 07:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Some day this young man may be notable, but I find no sign that day has come. — teb728 t c 08:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (possible A7/G11 speedy): A WP:SPA article on a recent graduate from high school, written with a promotional tone ("stunning websites", "huge projects", "creative, unique websites") and sourced to the subject's LinkedIn. Rightly rejected at AfC and moved to mainspace regardless. Previous attempts at speedy deletion have been removed by IP, indicating possible WP:SOCK concerns. No evidence of attained biographical notability. AllyD ( talk) 08:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Withdrawn by nominator. – Ammarpad ( talk) 12:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Wangchuk Namgyal

Wangchuk Namgyal (  | 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:NOTRS — Bukhari  (Talk!) 06:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 23:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Carmen L. Browne

Carmen L. Browne (  | 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 notability guideline. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 11:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Mary R. Bassett

Mary R. Bassett (  | 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 notability guideline. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete I have added some other titles, and some quotes from reviews of the books. I would have to say, though, that although they are from multiple independent reliable sources, she is not the primary subject of the reviews, so they don't count towards WP:ARTIST. A pity, but unless/until some other works publish more information about her, or another editor is aware of such sources offline, she does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 04:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep the included sources establish coverage in multiple sources. Coupled with the numerous plublicatons, I'll say she just makes it. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 08:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Keep I'm wondering if this needs actual library research. It seems like she's likely notable, perhaps is mentioned in books about American illustrators, but it might take some time to find. Is the author interested in draftifying? valereee ( talk) 12:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep My thinking is similar to that of Valereee. There is enough evidence currently in the article to suggest that there would be still further sources, hard to access because of their age, which would more conclusively establish notability. I acknowledge this is a bit speculative but this article is not promotional, does not present BLP issues, and so I err on the side of inclusion given the current evidence of notability. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • WP:HEYMANN KEEP, Kudos to RebeccaGreen and Megalibrarygirl for improving sources, but why Nom borught a 20th century illustrator to AfD without a proper WP:BEFORE I cannot fathom. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
@ DeltaQuad: In that case there's a good reason to consider if WP:NEXIST applies - you don't have to have the references to hand yourself, just know that they exist. AfD should always be a last option. Finally, @ TeriEmbrey: is exactly the kind of editor who we should be encouraging to contribute more to the project, as they appear to be in a position to obtain hard-to-get sources and have detail knowledge of those sources. If you spent your time to start six articles, and had them nominated for deletion in rapid succession with little explanation, would this encourage you to engage further with the project?
I think a good next step for you would be to consider whether to withdraw some or all of the AfD nominations given the sourcing that has been found, particularly by RebeccaGreen and Megalibrarygirl who have done excellent work here. FOARP ( talk) 08:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm absolutely willing to go over the sourcing as I get access to review all these new pay-walled sources. I would have been willing to engage Teri, but the last time I did, they blanked the thread on their talkpage, so I didn't have much of an option to communicate, just a WP:OWN with them being part of the GLAM program, with seemingly no improvement over a month. So I find it particularly hard to encourage someone in that circumstance. And yes, I've now learned that news articles could be of great benefit and is why I have requested access to newspapers.com. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is clear that subject meets WP:NAUTHOR. (non-admin closure) Ifnord ( talk) 03:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Alice Cooper Bailey

Alice Cooper Bailey (  | 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 notability guideline. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Same comment as in the other AfD proposals posted today: this is unhelpful. We are given no indication that WP:BEFORE was performed. This is one of several AfD proposals posted at the same time with the same short-sentence rationale by the same editor. FOARP ( talk) 17:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP Per WP:BASIC and WP:NEXIST. There are at least three books about authors that have chapters or paragraph-length entries about her. Whilst I do not have access to these books as they are not online, it appears that notability can be sustained. See here: 1 2 3 FOARP ( talk) 17:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have found reviews of most of the books in digitised newspapers, as well as articles about the writer. With the sources already in the article, plus one that FOARP also found, it is plenty to meet WP:AUTHOR. I will try to add some of the references to the article, as I have already done with two of the other 6 articles AfDed by the same nom on the same day, with the exact same wording. (If there is not a limit on how many AfDs one person can do on one day, there should be!) RebeccaGreen ( talk) 17:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
I note that all six of the articles AfD'd appear to have been written by User:TeriEmbrey who the nom appears to be in a dispute with. This is unhelpful to the editors who work on AfD, if WP:BEFORE was done then tell us what you found/didn't find and give us more to work with. FOARP ( talk) 17:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment on the content, not continuously slapping a person with a trout. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
hi Amanda, some editors may see E.M.Gregory's comment as a bit harsh, although as someone who has followed/been involved with afds for a few years i can also see their annoyance/frustration(?) when editors instigate 1/2 a dozen afds in 5mins with an unhelpful "fails notability" and not much else, ie. no apparent indication that nominator has looked at alternatives such as searching for sources, raising concerns on article talkpage/with article creator/relevant wikiprojects, tagging article, that said we're all volunteers and i hope we can sit down and enjoy a cup of tea together. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Coolabahapple: Absolutely I can see how it would cause annoyance and frustration that I didn't explain much, but I always check as much as I can before hand on each individual article. I checked all first and then nominated all. The comments I made could have been more explained. I've learned that lesson, and also requested access to newspapers.com so I can run what people have found before. And I am not concerned about one trout, but they have put it on each AfD, so I've been trouted 6 times now by one editor. So that's why I pointed to a common principle. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Just for the record, there were only 2 TROUT. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ifnord ( talk) 03:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Ve Elizabeth Cadie

Ve Elizabeth Cadie (  | 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 notability guideline. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I have added some references and quotes to the article. I think there is more to be found, as a 1932 article said her "originality is causing quite a stir in art and industry", and a 1938 article described her as a "prominent designer". However, I'm in Australia, and the databases I have access to focus on Australia, so I hope someone with access to US sources can add more. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 08:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a borderline case but the absence of a proper delete rationale and the provision of references by RebeccaGreen leans me towards keeping. I could flip to delete if the nom offers a properly argued rationale for deleting. FOARP ( talk) 18:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep She was also an inventor with two patents to her name. (Reference added) -- the eloquent peasant ( talk) 20:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, meets WP:GNG, now reflected by the well referenced article, a big well done! to the above editors:) ps. i want The Cat Whose Whiskers Slipped (1st ed. of course:)), it looks like a wonderful book:)) Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep, based on the numerous book publications. The patents are irrelevant, unless they had become widely distributed designs. Anyone can get a patent. I removed two overzealous sources (art.com and bonanza.com) that were actually just pages advertising one of her books for sale. Pages selling items on bonanza.com are not WP:RS. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 08:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: WP:RS explicitly states "inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times." Both of those pages were archives of past sales, and simply verify that she designed covers for the magazine. They do not contribute to notability, obviously, but there is no reason not to include them. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 05:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, same reasons as above (especially now improved article, & likelihood of more sources emerging). One minor pt: according to WorldCat, at least 1 of the books Cadie illustrated was translated into Spanish & her illustrations were included. (Perhaps additional evidence of significant collective body of work as per WP:BIO?) Regarding her patents, I see that one was cited by patent examiners in a later application (maybe that's not meaningful). I do think more may turn up about her design work across fields given those patents, & that seems notable for an American woman working in the 1930s (the reason we have pages like List of inventions and discoveries by women, after all). MNmagistra ( talk) 11:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
This is obviously goign to be a keep, but let's be real about the patents. The first patent issued to a female inventor was given to Mary_Dixon_Kies in 1809, and that is obviously notable for many reasons if you check the article. The subject of this article has two patents for an insulated coffee pot handle. Nobody is going to go down in history for having invented an insulated coffee pot handle, especially when Google patents shows 245,000 results related to patents on coffee pots. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 13:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
OT but as a patent attorney I can tell you that there are many millions of patents in existence (the Derwent database holds 110 million applications, granted patents, formal notices and other documents), and that it is very common for them to be cited as prior art against subsequent applications. FOARP ( talk) 07:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 19:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Robert A. King (composer)

Robert A. King (composer) (  | 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 notability guideline. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. @ User:DeltaQuad it is very, very unhelpful to post multiple AfD proposals with identical rationales for deletion that do not give assessors even the slightest indication that you have done even the most basic work necessary WP:BEFORE you can justify wiping out the work of other editors, nor any idea why you believe the article should be deleted. You're saying only that this "fails the notability guideline", but not how. Sources are given on the page - why are these deficient for sustaining notability? I have no idea based on what you've told us. I see you're an experienced editor which makes this even harder to understand. FOARP ( talk) 16:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ FOARP: I don't have much time right now to go through all the AFDs, but I will spill out the WP:BEFORE for this one.
  1. I have read Wikipedia policies and understand them.
  2. This is not a speedy deletion candidate.
  3. Searches through websites do not how the specific guideline for creative professionals is satisfied.
  4. All additional checks don't yield anything.
  5. Improving doesn't address inherit notability issues.
  6. I already talked about sources.
-- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:NEXIST. I believe sources exist to sustain the notability of this composer. This is a very complicated issue since King appears to have written under a large number of pseudonyms, but searching under Robert Keiser (another pseudonym of King - or even his real name?) brought up a number of sources that are not available in full online but appear to discuss him in detail. These sources appear to be independent RS's. See particularly 1 2 FOARP ( talk) 16:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • WP:SNOW Keep conspicuous notability: multiple bluelinked songs, discussed in books about songwriters of the era. Yet another in an inexplicable series of rapid-fire AfD nominations of notable writers, artists and composers by an editor who appears not to have considered WP:BEFORE. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Multiple editors have confirmed that this is not a hoax. (non-admin closure) Andrew D. ( talk) 13:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

William Smellie (geologist)

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

There are other William Smellies, but this article seems slightly suspicious with only a couple indistinct references. I suspect this article possibly was hoaxed because of the humorous surname. ~Sıgehelmus♗ (Tøk) 06:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: William R Smellie's "Igneous Rocks of Bute" can be seen to be published and subsequently cited by others: [10]. AllyD ( talk) 10:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep: The hoax rationale for the nomination is negated by the published Royal Society of Edinburgh reference which confirms the subject's fellowship and curatorial appointment. In addition to the publication noted in my earlier comment (on which see also this), others can be found such as this review in the Geological Magazine. There are also listings such as this (which also shows the relative frequency of the name - off topic, but I think someone I knew as "Mrs Smeel" actually had that unfortunate surname.) AllyD ( talk) 10:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep Serious failure of WP:BEFORE: The Royal Society of Edinburgh is hardly an "indistinct reference" (whatever that means), and clearly shows William Robert Smellie as a member. Additionally, there are details of his role as curator in The Life and Work of Professor J.W. Gregory FRS (1864-1932), Geologist [11], and there's an obituary in the Proceedings of the Geological Society of Glasgow [12]. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 12:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Firm consensus after WP:HEY work by RebeccaGreen that notability is satisfied (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear ( talk) 21:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Elizabeth O. Hiller

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

Still does not assert notability even after leaving it for a month. Author does not wish to discuss the issue. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I have added references, including articles dating from 1899 to 1987, about her books, courses, lectures and demonstrations. The article already included sources from 1917-2009. I believe these show that she meets WP:CREATIVE #1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." and #3 "The person has created .. a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." She was clearly regarded as a notable / prominent / leading cook and domestic science lecturer, and her work continued to be reviewed in independent sources (eg the New York Daily News, the Lansing State Journal). RebeccaGreen ( talk) 14:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per RebeccaGreen. FOARP ( talk) 18:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Chant (band)

Chant (band) (  | 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 claim to notability and I can't find any. Fails WP:GNG but passes pure advertisement. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Final ASP

Final ASP (  | 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 don’t think this passes WP:ORG Mccapra ( talk) 09:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord ( talk) 05:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 04:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

MChat!

MChat! (  | 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 Mccapra ( talk) 11:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord ( talk) 05:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Per A7. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 14:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Owen Cusac

Owen Cusac (  | 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 appear to be notable as I don't believe that Instagram followers is an indication of notability JC7V ( talk) 04:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

If someone is notable enough for Famous Birthdays, they are notable for Wikipedia. Pop culture has much relevance. User:spacewriter3002 —Preceding undated comment added 06:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Being listed on Famous Birthdays is not an indicator of notability per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. To be notable per Wikipedia's notability guidelines, a subject requires significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources which Owen Cusac does not have. JC7V ( talk) 06:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost ( talk) 07:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lourdes 08:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

ViSenze

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

Insufficient sources for notability on its own. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 18:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 18:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 18:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lourdes 08:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Faryal Makhdoom

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

No evidence for notability. The references are social gossip about her relationship with someone who is actually notable. The relevant policy is NOT TABLOID. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Lourdes 08:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Yash Wadali

Yash Wadali (  | 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 seem to be notable enough to have a wiki article, lack of coverage on reliable recourses Shringhringshring ( talk) 00:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 01:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 01:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 00:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lourdes 08:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Sergei Kurilov

Sergei Kurilov (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_December_15&oldid=1142616850"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 14 December 16 December >

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. The consensus of this discussion was that the party failed WP:NORG and the GNG. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Me and You - The Israeli People's Party

Me and You - The Israeli People's Party (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable political party; no independent references (all the media references are from well before the party was established and just refer to the political situation). Prod removed by article's creator, who has no other edits to Wikipedia than to this. Number 5 7 23:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • The efforts to delete this article are unjustified and unsupported by evidince and by wikipedia rules. This is an artice about an established and registered party in israel, the likes of which can be found in the following: Or (political party), Pirate Party of Israel, Eretz Hadasha, ect. All those parties are not of yet elected and examples of wikipedia pages of unelected parties are to be found from any country where such parties exist. Wikipedia is not limited by space and there is no reason to deny people from getting such infromation. As for third party refrences - the registration documents of the party from governmental websites should be sufficient evidence for the party's existence, but to answer your request completely, I have also added an interview of the party, during a protest, by an israeli financial newspaper called globes, which is one of the most prominent of those, proving the party's existnece and activity. If you have any more complaints, please send me a messege on a talk page, and I will take measures to cast them aside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeisraeli ( talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Registered party but did not participate in any past election nor hold any seats/posts. The sole independent coverage I found was this rather bonkers legal motion to electoral commission to disqualify most of the current MKs from running in the next elections - which was rejected out of hand on procedural grounds (the motion wasn't filed at the right time) - but had a snowball's chance also if filed correctly. In short - doesn't pass WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Sources in the article are mainly not independent or pre-date the party and cover the founder (and there aren't all that many of those). Icewhiz ( talk) 10:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    Note that the hewiki entry was also created quite recently also by Zeisraeli (the English seems to be a translation of the Hebrew). I initiated a notability discussion on hewiki on this article (mileage there may vary - hewiki differs notability wise from enwiki - lots of SNGs (some tougher than enwiki, some more lenient)). Icewhiz ( talk) 10:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

POV - Icewhiz, on claim of rather bonkers legal motion. I have two more third party interviews regarding the matter which I will shortly add, and from reading the wikipedia rulebook, such third party prespectives are point on which an article is decided as relevent or not. One interview is by a respected journalist, and the other by the former maneger of Kol Israel - one of the most prominnent redio channels in Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeisraeli ( talk • contribs) 11:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

I assert that "bonkers" is the appropriate term for the legal motion (which was rejected out of hand due to procedural reasons, but would've been rejected anyway even if filed in a timely fashion) - as a one word summary of the coverage in Maariv. The legal motion was not bonkers in the sense that it was bonkers enough to generate some press for this otherwise un-covered party (all be it - such coverage was mainly on the bonkers claim - but something is better than nothing). Icewhiz ( talk) 11:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
a person who calles a legel document "Bonkers" without having studied it is indeed bonckers, and you are also practicing Independent research and vicious personal Point Of View attacks, which not based on said maariv article. I therefore raise a worry about your personal interests, and requests you reveal any COI, or refrain from expressing derogatory and heavily biased claims.-- Zeisraeli ( talk) 16:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The commission's response per Maariv is self explanatory. As for COI on my end - I do have a working knowledge of Israeli politics. The first I've heard of "Me and You - The Israeli People's Party" is in this AfD, I have no relation to this party nor to any of its (broadly construed) competing parties. I did initiate a hewiki notability discussion after this AfD begun - however that is not a COI. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Stefka Bulgaria and talk are making an utter mess of engwiki policy. To begin with, a proper interview,such as these were , consists of an Interviewer and interviewee, the first states his position and the latter Cross-examins him, makes a conclusion and asks for clarifications - the first is a primery source, and the latter a secondery because he is also a independent commentator. As for the reliability of interviewers in question - The former Manager of Kol Israel is interviwing him on a news website, and is not retired. The women who is interviewing him is a commentator on prime israeli news channels, and therefore both have credibility. As it were, may I remind you both that wikipedia asks for only one third party source to make an subject notable, and I have provided three (another 5 minute on globes)-- Zeisraeli ( talk) 16:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete obvious WP:PROMO lacking notability per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 22:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep While I'm concerned about the WP:PROMO and WP:COI concerns, a registered political party would meet WP:NPOL in my eyes. Bkissin ( talk) 17:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply

- General notability guideline ( for clarification):

  • Significant coverage : Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material: Israeli newspaper globes publishes coverage of a demonstration, a quarter of which is an interview of the party\ two complete interviews dedicated solely to the party.
  • Reliable: sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability... When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint: All intervieweres are established journalists in israel (for example Tami Mulad on israel's national news channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvMhVFTcZ7M), and therefore are to be considered reliable.
  • Sources: should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability...They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them: this is exactly what is done in the interviewes as stated before in the disscusion (they ask questions, interpet and comment on the answer). No where is it written that secondery sources can't be interviews, if they are not simply a press release.
  • Independent of the subject: excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it: The refrenced journalists are not known to be affiliated with the party.
  • Presumed: if the article violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information then it should not be a wikipedia article ( it should not be a Summary-only descriptions of works, Lyrics databases, Excessive listings of unexplained statistics, Exhaustive logs of software updates): it is not any of these, therefore, it is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
    therefore, the party is to be objectively considered notable - Q.E.D  — Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
Zeisraeli (
talk • 
contribs) 
18:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
    • It is also worthwhile noting that, in Israel, party registration and election registration are separate - not all registered parties run. In this case this party has not been registered (yet) to run in any elections. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply
      It is also worthwhile noting that, in Israel, parties only register when elections begin, and no party is registered (yet) to run in any elections.-- 2.55.33.225 ( talk) 05:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Nom. I note that no notable persons are in this party (a new party formed by major public figures might be notable.) Coverage appears NOT to be in major media. And No one in this endless discussion disputes the fact that this new political party had not gotten any candidates elected. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Note - the hewiki entry (linked Talk) was deleted today following a notability discussion on the page there (no deletion vote, as there was a clear consensus (sole objector was the creator) in the notability discussion (different procedure over there - in hewiki one tags notability, discusses on the talk page, and there is a vote only if there is disagreement)). Icewhiz ( talk) 12:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Winning a Grammy satisfies WP:NALBUM. (non-admin closure) Ifnord ( talk) 03:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

I Remember Warsaw

I Remember Warsaw (  | 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:NALBUM: nothing to be found about this album in Discogs, billboard, the 28th Grammy awards (which this supposedly won the best polka recording, article says Frank Yankovic for 70 Years of Hits), and nothing on web search. – eggofreason talk 20:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Jemeker Thompson

Jemeker Thompson (  | 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:CRIMEBIO. Sheldybett ( talk) 00:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 01:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 01:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 01:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Strong keep. She was the subject of newspaper articles in St. Louis at the time of her conviction but also she was noted as a teenager in Mississippi for her track-and-field records, plus her sterling school attendance record. All this, plus her book, makes her worthy of inclusion. https://www.newspapers.com/search/#query=jemeker+thompson&dr_year=1947-2010&offset=4 BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 18:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Here's the story of her arrest, in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: https://www.newspapers.com/image/140010222/?terms=jemeker%2Bthompson BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 21:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 21:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • delete I tried to source it using Proquest news archive But her book got only a review in Kirkus (which reviews pretty much all trade books the publisher is promoting) and a single review in a local newspaper. there was also a documentary about her on TV, but it gets only a couple of mere mentions in the media. Feel free to ping me to revisit if somebody adds persuasive, WP:RS - I'm always to change my opinion when presented with sources, but Ive looked and I'm not finding enough. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 01:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, notable. Sources are available - just needs a little love. - 208.81.148.195 ( talk) 21:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Can you point us to some of those sources? I ask because an article in the local daily paper covering her arrest does not carry her past WP:SIGCOV. And neither the book, or the documentary drew enough attention to pass WP:GNG.
  • The documentary itself is a reasonable source to use in expanding and supporting the article. There was also considerable coverage of her arrest and trial in the Alton Telegraph, a St. Louis-area daily currently owned by Hearst. - 208.81.148.195 ( talk) 17:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • The question at issue in this discussion is notability. Clearly Thompson self-promotes by writing a book and being(strike and revise) consenting to be portrayed in a documentary, but the documentary has drawn so little attention that, like the memoir, it offers little support for notability. It is admirable when someone like Thompson with a misspent youth, gets it together to launch a new life, in this case, as a preacher. But it may not make them notable by Wikipedia standards. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Fair enough. But the point here is that there is only one source on the page that even mentions her name in connection with "Drug Lords" (a non bluelinked, short-lived Nexflix series that - I searched, - got almost no coverage at all .) The sole source - already on the page - that I have found that mentions her as being part of this show is one that names her along with two or three other interviewees in a single sentence, a mere listing that is part of a very, very long list of TV programs scheduled for broadcast that week. What I have now made several good faith searches for - and NOT FOUND - are sources that support notability. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
"Dubbed Queen Pin by the DEA" she's the topic of an episode of For my man TV show, season 4 episode 6.-- the eloquent peasant ( talk) 01:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply
SFGate https://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/the-wrap/article/Narcos-Renewed-Which-Drug-Lords-Belong-on-9208161.php mentions her.-- the eloquent peasant ( talk) 02:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply
NYTimes mention of Thompson reads, in full: "Jemeker Thompson, a Los Angeles cocaine dealer turned evangelical minister." Little Brown is the publisher; it's not a review, it's promotion. "Dubbed Queen Pin by the DEA" is IMDB. This documentary isn't SIGCOV unless a secondary, WP:RS discusses it. Bht SFGate article is SIGCOV . It reads: "But not every major drug lord is male. Take, for example, Jemeker Thompson, a.k.a. “The Queen Pin.” In 1980s Los Angeles, crack-cocaine was an in-demand drug, and Thompson became one of the top suppliers. Eventually, she was arrested in 1993 and served 13 years in prison, during which she had a religious awakening. She now works as an evangelical minister and has released a memoir about the life she left behind. You can watch her interview with CBS Los Angeles here." Perhaps, together with review of her book and the old article about her arrest suffice. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 18:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Karan Nath

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

Clear fail of WP:GNG if not WP:NACTOR. The only reference in the article says he is working on a home production(!) as part of his comeback. — C.Fred ( talk) 18:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello. Can you clarify what "clear fail of WP:GNG if not WP:NACTOR" mean? Does the subject - from your perspective - fail NACTOR? Thanks and regards, Biwom ( talk) 20:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have added some information about his roles in each film. As he has starred in 5 films which are notable enough to have Wikipedia entries, it would seem he would meet WP:NACTOR. The article does need more sources, but that is not a reason for deleting it. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 01:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete-A significant role in a single film (and I can halfheartedly allot another). I fail to spot any coverage resemblant with GNG apart from some interviews to entertainment-periodicals as a newbie lead who faded from the scene, soon thereafter. ∯WBG converse 20:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As I said in my comment above, he has starred - ie had the lead role, and been the first-named actor, in not one but five films, from 2001-2009. He clearly meets WP:NACTOR. I do not know what the reference meant by saying "Karan will make a comeback with his home production 'Guns of Banaras' ", but it's definitely not a home movie. The director is Sekhar Suri, and the other lead actors include Nathalia Kaur and Vinod Khanna. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 03:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 18:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 14:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Deirdre Eberly Lashgari

Deirdre Eberly Lashgari (  | 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 enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, and she doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 15:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 18:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 18:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for academics. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable academic. Fails WP:PROF. Also, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC) will revisit. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep #1 of WP:ACADEMIC is "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Under Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics is the point "For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases one can also look at how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries (this information is available in Worldcat) when evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied." Lashgari's book Violence, Silence, and Anger: Women's Writing as Transgression (1995) is held by 469 libraries, according to Worldcat. The Other Voice: Women's Poetry in Translation (1976) is in 712 libraries, Women Poets of The World is in 281. (I think it is very significant that books from 1976 and 1995 have not been deaccessioned, and are still in so many libraries.) WP:ACADEMIC #4 is "The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions." The article says (at the end of the section Works - very badly placed, it should be in the lead para): "Her pioneering work and leading contributions changed the literary curriculum at Berkeley and other institutes and universities in the United States of America and has normalized the presence of women's voices and writings as part of the syllabus in such departments." The reference for that is an obituary in The New York Times and Claremont Courier. So there is definitely evidence that she meets WP:ACADEMIC. The article could be improved to better show that, but that is not a reason for deleting it. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 16:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per RebeccaGreen. Uninvited Company 20:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per sources found by RebeccaGreen. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Sources show sufficient notability. -- Michig ( talk) 07:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As noted in the discussion, the best solution here is to start the article from scratch. Tone 19:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Bruno Colmant

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

Unable to determine if notable with terrible references with supposed heavyweight. Fails WP:ACADEMIC, WP:BIO. Heavy awards also, but no refs. scope_creep Talk 13:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Bears all the hallmarks of an undisclosed CoI article which probably qualifies as a G11 candidate. Colmant has published some papers, but they have not been cited by many, and judging by his page, I doubt he meets WP:NBIO or WP:ACADEMIC. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 14:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - WP:BEFORE revealed published papers, but without many cites and nothing that would be ground-breaking. A WorldCat search revealed many books, with the most popular being stocked in 47 libraries, almost all in France. Some parts of the article definitely read like a promotion, the Media section of the article in particular catching my eye. Could be worth an article but would need to start over. DeniedClub ❯❯❯ talk? 08:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Matias Viegener

Matias Viegener (  | 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:AUTHOR and WP:BIO. The book seems to be more famous than the Matias Viegener, the author. No real coverage per WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep Talk 13:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 18:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 18:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. Consensus that he fails notability but could meet it in the near future. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 16:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Damir Ismagulov

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

Subject is an MMA Fighter. Fails WP:NMMA notability requirements. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 14:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 14:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 14:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 14:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per nominator. PRehse ( talk) 10:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It's true he fails to meet WP:NMMA. However, his victory last night in his first UFC fight almost guarantees he'll get at least two more fights with them--barring injury, suspension, or similar event. I understand that's WP:CRYSTALBALL, but it's why I'm hesitant to vote delete on someone who I think is likely to be notable relatively soon. If I was forced to make a decision, I'd have to vote delete at this time but I was thinking it might be better to put it into draft space instead of deleting it. Papaursa ( talk) 19:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Inter&#38|Papaursa|PRehse Thank you for your comments and interest in this article AfD. I understand the reason behind of draftifing the page instead of deletion. I have drafting a few pages before in the past. However, the reason to nominationn for AfD instead of draftiying is that for the fighter to meet the WP:NMMA means the fighter needs to fight another 2 more fights provided their contract is not less than 3 fights. A draft would only stays in the system for 6 months before it is deleted which means not only the subject need be booked and fought 2 more fights within next six months provided the subject and their opponent do not pulled out due to injuries before the fights and the medical suspension after a fight is in its minimum duration. All this is WP:CRYSTALBALL and we know that in the fight game, anything could happen even on the fight day. Secondly, if a dratified page moves back to main space by confirmed user, we can not re dratify as as the "draft" copy of the small subject is existed and we still need to get back to AfD process. It is much easy to recreate the page when NMMA is met as we the reveiwer just nee to click check on the review button.
I truly believe an editor create a fighter article without the knowledge of the WP:NMMA requirements and I am one of them where I have created a few fighter articles when I started joining Wikipedia family before I found out there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts and WP:NMMA requirements. The things here is "consistency" applying WP:NMMA. Since the guidelines have been set and if we dont apply them consistently and allowing one article to draftied the the other to be AfD deleted, then we would face editors stating our biasness and setting a case for them to attack the guidelines. If a page fighter page fails WP:NMMA and has not been AfD and allows the fighter meets the WP:NMMA which most likely it will happen that is another things. Since there are only a handful of gate keepers in MMA project in AfD, I hope to reach an understanding of agreement in consistency for I would not want to AfD a page where it is not call for or it is not the practice of of following WP:NMMA guidelines for I do not want to have a misunderstanding or work against each other since we are a small group here in AfD MMA. All I want is collaboration and work in good will. I have give my 2c and I need to know where we stand. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 09:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 12:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Funding Options

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

promotional article--the references are either general references on Designated Funding portals, or mere mentions, press releases. or promotional interviews -- see WP:NCORP. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

I am raising an objection to this proposed deletion. This proposal for deletion has been prompted as a result of a draft article submitted by me relating to Alternative Business Funding (ABF), the originator of the three current UK government designated portals. This content was subject to speedy deletion by DGG who, as a result of my appeal against that deletion, has now reviewed Funding Options for deletion as well. At this stage I simply wish to register the objection. I will add further comment once I have had time to prepare a reasoned argument for this objection. Casius12 ( talk) 11:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply

K.e.coffman It seems we are going round this circle again. Please see the discussion that is talking place with User:DGG regarding this page and Alternative Business Funding as a result of your original deletion decision. This has not yet been resolved and both decisions are linked. Casius12 ( talk) 17:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 19:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Noah Carl

Noah Carl (  | 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:ACADEMIC and WP:1E. A very junior academic (a postdoc, in fact) who does not satisfy the notability guideline for academics and whose notability really comes from one single event. Atchom ( talk) 04:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 04:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 04:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 04:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:BASIC. Seriously, look at the references: three separate instances of WP:SIGCOV for separate incidents in reliable sources over a year 1 2 3. The fact that one of them was front-page news doesn't mean the others don't count - in fact the latest incident in which he was consider notable (the letter) is a result of previous incidents in which he was considered notable (his controversial research activities, speaking at the London conference) and is therefore not actually a single incident per se. FOARP ( talk) 08:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
PS - can I just point out how unhelpful this delete proposal is? In no particular order:
1) There's no sign that WP:BEFORE was performed.
2) There's no attempt to engage with the other events discussed on the page. In the proposer's view these apparently don't meet the criteria for notability, but they haven't stated why when that was obviously a topic that would come up here.
3) The proposer has stated that this is a BLP based on a single event. Per policy the normal solution to that is merge/redirect/rename to a page discussing the event, not delete as a first step - but no reason for going straight to delete was given, or potential merge/redirect target proposed as an alternative solution.
4) No attempt at tagging the page with a notability notice first to allow a chance to improve it.
Imagine I was a new editor and this was my first article - would this encourage me to engage with Wiki further? FOARP ( talk) 10:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir ( talk) 22:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm sorry that the article creator feels that way, so I feel I should elaborate. Firstly, I don't think it is in dispute that the person in question is an academic, so WP:ACADEMIC applies. The subject of the article fails all 9 possible notability criteria as set out by the article, which isn't surprising given that he is merely a postdoc, and a new one at that.
Of course, the article can then still be saved under the general notability guidelines. Now, there is no disagreement that the recent coverage of the person (because of the attempt to get him fired) has attracted considerable coverage. However, WP:1E would require that there should be coverage of the person not in relation to this particular event.
Of the two other sources FOARP cites above, one is an article by the Guardian about some research he and others published which quotes him. That's not coverage of the subject of the biography, but coverage of the research with a quote from the person. Academics routinely provide quotes to the media, and there is absolutely nothing about Carl in the Guardian piece. As to the New Statesman article, it mentions him as one of many who went to a controversial conference in London. Again, this does not constitute "significant coverage" under WP:SIGCOV, and neither changes the fact that his notability is essentially derived from one event.
Atchom ( talk) 22:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • comment The New Statesman coverage amounts to two long paragraphs and in my view rises to the level of WP:SIGCOV. Here they are in full:
"Our investigation into the London Conference on Intelligence uncovered the involvement of at least 40 academics from at least 29 different universities in 15 different countries. Among these was the Oxford academic Noah Carl, a postdoctoral researcher in the social sciences at Nuffield College, who has spoken twice at the London Conference on Intelligence. Carl has also written several papers for Emil Kirkegaard’s OpenPsych, which include two looking at whether larger Muslim populations make Islamist terrorism more likely, and one suggesting that British stereotypes towards immigrants are “largely accurate”.
One external reviewer responded to the last paper by stating that: “It is never OK to publish research this bad, even in an inconsequential online journal.” Nevertheless, the paper was featured by conservative US website The Daily Caller, under a picture of Nigel Farage’s “Breaking Point” poster. The far right European Free West Media cited the paper to claim that “criminal elements are represented by certain ethnic groups”, and on the blog of a far-right French presidential candidate under the headline “Study validates prejudices”. It even ended up on InfoWars, one of the most popular news websites in the USA, and can be found circulating on far-right corners of Reddit. The fact that Carl is linked to Oxford University was mentioned frequently in the coverage, providing legitimacy to the political opinions presented."
I believe this section rises to WP:SIGCOV since Carl is not merely mentioned in passing in a long list of people but is described with his research in some depth, as well as the way he serves to legitimise certain views. This meets the requirement that the reference "addresses the topic directly and in detail" - it talks directly about him and discusses details of who he is and what his significance is.
Inherent in the most recent event (the letter) is that there were previous events which were also notable (i.e., the activities that the letter complains about). These previous events were also reported in reliable sources (e.g., the New Statesman). Even if you don't think that the NS ref was WP:SIGCOV then the coverage of the letter also acts as coverage of the same events that the New Statesman reports (i.e., two separate events).
Finally, if you believe this to be a WP:1E situation then why are you proposing deletion? FOARP ( talk) 06:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Atchom, did you see the list of sources I compiled in the talk page? There's a lot of stuff, most of which is related to the ongoing event, but it's very likely that Carl will be in the media again as soon as his interview ban is lifted, or if he gets fired. So seems pointless to delete this page based on WP:1E only to have to recreate it in a few days. It makes more sense to just expand it and add more sources as they come out. Deleet ( talk) 01:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Atchom: I assume you wanted to reference FOARP as I haven't actually contributed to this discussion. PriceDL ( talk) 01:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Yes, sorry. Corrected above. Atchom ( talk) 03:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
This is true, and also why I am abstaining from voting or editing mainspace here. Deleet ( talk) 20:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Mr. Kirkegaard, commenting here really doesn't help anything. FOARP ( talk) 09:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply
WP:FRINGE is not grounds for deletion but instead rules how fringe theories should be handled in articles. This article is not about a fringe theory but about an academic whose work may amount to fringe theories. Plenty of cranks and flim-flam artists are worthy of coverage in an encyclopedic article. Encyclopedic coverage does not imply any endorsement of the subject - often quite the opposite since it is the degree to which the subject if wrong that is often the reason for their notability. WP:ACADEMIC is not the relevant standard here since it is not really his contribution to the academic field per se that is the reason for his notability, but instead the controversies around him, WP:BASIC is the appropriate standard, and since he is notable for more than one event (I count at least three - his research, the London Conference, and the letter - all reported in reliable sources) he meets that standard. FOARP ( talk) 06:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Bpesta22, would you care to explain why you believe that Carl is notable enough for an article? IntoThinAir ( talk) 15:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Is significant coverage of his activities, and then the letter complaining of them, not sufficient? FOARP ( talk) 16:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC) reply
It seems like coverage of his current situation will be ongoing; his other research has been covered elsewhere (by reliable sources), and the London Conference thing was also covered by the media. All these combined led me to vote "keep." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpesta22 ( talk • contribs) 13:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 12:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America 1000 03:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Shigure Sohma

Shigure Sohma (  | 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 WP:GNG and is primarily just unsourced fan WP:OR. I found no information in a WP:BEFORE search I did that he is notable outside of the manga/anime universe he inhabits. His entry on the List of Fruits Basket characters is sufficient for Wikipedia, as he is not notable on his own. Most Fruits Basket character articles (including this one), were created by the same long inactive fan-editor in 2005 and were eliminated about 10 years ago for lack of notability. Newshunter12 ( talk) 03:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 08:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 08:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 10:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 12:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America 1000 03:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Yuki Sohma

Yuki Sohma (  | 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 WP:GNG and is primarily just unsourced fan WP:OR. I found no information in a WP:BEFORE search I did that he is notable outside of the manga/anime universe he inhabits. His entry on the List of Fruits Basket characters is sufficient for Wikipedia, as he is not notable on his own. Most Fruits Basket character articles (including this one), were created by the same long inactive fan-editor in 2005 and were eliminated about 10 years ago for lack of notability. Newshunter12 ( talk) 03:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 08:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 08:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 10:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 12:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 13:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

David Keddie

David Keddie (  | 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 was PRODded because the subject failed WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. I removed the PROD because I thought the Scottish Second Division was at the time fully professional, which meant he would have passed the subject-specific guideline. My rationale was queried so I raised the question at WT:FOOTY where a more knowledgeable editor confirmed that it was in fact not fully pro at that time. Procedure says the PROD can't be restored, so here we are. Struway2 ( talk) 12:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 ( talk) 12:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 12:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 12:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 12:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Aoziwe ( talk) 12:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Marilynn Hughes

Marilynn Hughes (  | 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 believe this individual meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Most, if not all, of her books have been self-published and the citations in her article are not to reliable, independent sources. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 18:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 18:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 23:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Seattle Eagle

Seattle Eagle (  | 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 indication of notability to pass WP:NCORP. WP:Run-of-the-mill gay bar with no distinguishing characteristics. Routine coverage and business listings in the local alt-weekly does not make it notable. Reywas92 Talk 23:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per WP:GNG. User:Reywas92 has nominated several articles for deletion at once, so now I have to scramble to find sources for multiple subjects, but I believe there's sufficient coverage for an article. There are now 11 references in the article, and I've not even searched newspaper archives, local or otherwise. Sure, more sources are needed to help flesh out this article, but I believe there's a story to be told here about Seattle's oldest leather bar and longest operating gay bar. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 01:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 06:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Gay bars don't need "distinguishing characteristics" to be notable enough for Wikipedia articles, they just need enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. I'll grant that Another Believer did once undertake a misguided project of trying to start a single-sourced stub about every single gay bar that got blurbed in one isolated listicle — but they clearly learned from that, because they're trying much harder to source gay bars properly now and I've never been able to identify any serious problems with their work on gay bars since then. Bearcat ( talk) 20:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I agree with the rationale of the nominator. This establishment does not pass WP:GNG. Carajou ( talk) 03:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Some of the sources in the article now have quite short references to this bar, but there are probably enough to meet WP:GNG. I found a few that aren't yet included in the article, too, from the Seattle Weekly [3], [4], though they might be considered local. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 03:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Cesdeva  (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Sivananda yoga

Sivananda yoga (  | 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. Fails WP:GNG miserably, despite superficial appearances ($$$). Previous AfD here. Article link. Cesdeva  (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn in light of the sources produced. Cesdeva  (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cesdeva  (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 18:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, this is one of the major modern schools of "hatha yoga", as important as Iyengar Yoga, Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga and Bikram Yoga for example. May I remind everyone that notability depends not on the content of an article but on the existence of multiple reliable sources in the world, and there are plenty for this school of yoga. I will note also that today is a poor time for AfD discussion as many of us are going on holiday very shortly, so plenty of time should be allowed. However, Sivananda Yoga is recognised in neutral academic history books like Singleton, Mark (2010). Yoga body : the origins of modern posture practice. Oxford University Press. pp. 104, 135–137, 152, 216, 219. ISBN  978-0-19-539534-1. OCLC  318191988.; by the respected hatha yoga publication Yoga Journal, e.g. Jones 2007 (and many more YJ articles); by fitness sites such as Very Well Fit; by academic ethnography books like Laurah E. Klepinger's Sivananda Yoga in the West: An Experimental Autoethnography, from Los Angeles to South India and Back; and in academic religious studies (which are many) such as Suzanne Newcombe's The Revival of Yoga in Contemporary India. Newcombe puts it succinctly:

Sivananda’s vision of yoga was eclectic, offering varying definitions of “self-realization,” “God-realization” and “realizing the Immortal Atman” as the purpose of yogic striving. His literature emphasized meditation practices over āsana, but āsana became a stronger part of the Sivananda lineage over time. Although not directly agitating for independence, Sivananda supported the idealization of Gandhi as a model yogi. In many ways, Sivananda continued Vivekananda’s categories of yoga, with Sarah Strauss arguing that Sivananda’s injunctions to “Serve, Love, Meditate, Realise” roughly parallel Vivekananda’s four paths of yoga. Sivananda’s disciples, particularly Swami Vishnudevananda (1927–1993) who settled in Montreal, Canada, in 1959 and helped establish a global following, oversaw the opening of Sivananda Yoga Centres worldwide. The Bihar School of Yoga founded in 1964 by another of Sivananda’s disciples, Swami Satyananda Saraswati (1923–2009) also achieved an influential position both within India and internationally.

— Suzanne Newcombe, 2017
In short, a wide range of different types of source, both academic and practical, independent of Sivananda, cover the system in detail. In addition, a large number of books and websites direct people who wish to practise yoga to the many Sivananda Yoga centres around the world, and thousands of fitness clubs and gymnasiums follow the school's guidance. The article needs work (so did all the other yoga articles I've edited) but that is not a matter for AfD. This is a key component of modern hatha yoga, recognised as such in multiple academic and practical disciplines, and it is a vital component of Wikipedia's coverage of the domain. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 11:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Fair enough. Cesdeva  (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 13:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Convergence acceleration by the Ford-Sidi W(m) algorithm

Convergence acceleration by the Ford-Sidi W(m) algorithm (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As claimed in the article this is a "proposal" and so constitutes original research. Also not a sufficiently notable topic. The Ford-Sidi algorithm alone is not notable, and we don't list it at List_of_algorithms#Interpolation_and_extrapolation. It follows that this proposed direct application of the Ford-Sidi W(m) algorithm is not notable. Pontificalibus 08:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I have rarely if ever come across another article with so many reasons for being unsuitable for Wikipedia. Here are just a few of the reasons. (1) The Ford-Sidi algorithm certainly appears to be notable, and the Ford-Sidi W(m) algorithm may or may not be the same thing (if not then it probably isn't notable: my Google search turned up only 6 hits); however, this is not an article about that algorithm: it is about an investigation by some unnamed person (referred to in the article as "we") into convergence of that algorithm. It is original research, with no evidence anywhere of having been published or mentioned anywhere else. There is no evidence of notability. (2) Even if the subject were notable, this article would be totally unsuitable, as it simply launches into the middle of its topic without providing any context or explanation of what it refers to, so that readers will not actually know what it is about. (3) It is written as a personal essay, in which someone (referred to in the article as "we") repeatedly "proposes" a particular method, which is to say advocates or promotes it, and also gives an account of why he/she/they think that method is good, i.e it expresses a point of view. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 17:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is clear consensus that this character does not require a standalone article. I will note in passing that I am baffled about why the encyclopedic information about this character is hosted at Dumbledore's Army, rather than at List of Harry Potter characters, as would be usual; but that does not affect the outcome here. Vanamonde ( talk) 12:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Neville Longbottom (Fictional Character)

Neville Longbottom (Fictional Character) (  | 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's content already at Dumbledore's Army#Neville Longbottom ‑‑ V.S.( C)( T) 08:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

These are all reasons why he should have his own article, he was a really important character in the Movie/book. he could have been the hero of the story, in an alternative time line he is the hero. I honestly think that he is very important and thats why he should have his own page. In honor of Neville Longbottom Moeelmekkawy ( talk) 01:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I made this article so people that don't know anything about Neville can understand everything about him not just a brief of what his importance of his role in the Movie/book. the way his section in dumbledore's army only people that know of harry potter will understand what is seeing said Moeelmekkawy ( talk) 01:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Moeelmekkawy, to get an article on Wikipedia, a topic must meet our requirements for " Notability". The article you've made doesn't contain any secondary sources which are specifically about Neville (note that Wikia is not reliable as anyone can edit it). The other problem is that Wikipedia articles cannot only be plot summaries; an article on Neville would need to discuss the character's real-world impact—and again, this would need to be sourced to reliable, independent, secondary sources. — Bilorv (c) (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply
As I pointed out above, Moeelmekkawy, this isn't relevant to the way Wikipedia works. We have notability criteria to define what is suitable for an encyclopedia; other websites such as Wikia are more suited to fandom content like this. — Bilorv (c) (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I believe that this article contains much more context that is very helpful for those who might not know who Neville Longbottom is. Respectively I believe that taking down this article would only do harm for their is no other vase knowledge about him that you could find on the wikipedia most are just snippets of his traits when here it is a almost biography like of his importance in the novel and how key his character was in Harry Potter. While the other articles just seem to glance over him. Omaredits ( talk) 21:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC) — Omaredits ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Comment This, IMO, should not stay as an article on its own, but still much of the content should be moved to other articles. Redirecting to Dumbledore's Army#Neville Longbottom or any other similar place could be viable. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 19:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
We could move any valuable content to Dumbledore's Army#Neville Longbottom and delete the rest. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 20:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment that not my point creating the article, one of the reasons is that Neville played an important role in Harry Potter series and he deserves to have his own article. if you think he didn't play a major role in Harry Potter please explain. Moeelmekkawy ( talk) 20:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The WP:NAF essay informs us that there is currently no clear consensus as to how notability affects fictional topics. We have to turn to the WP:FICTION essay, which suggests we consider that individually non-notable elements of a fictional work (such as characters and episodes) may be grouped into an appropriate list article. (Emphasis in the original.) In this, we're advised to take into account WP:GNG and WP:NOT (and, of course, MOS:WAF, for the technical stuff). The crux here are the general-notability guidelines; the subject deserves an article of its own if and only if it passes the WP:GNG hurdle. - The Gnome ( talk) 11:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Michig ( talk) 13:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Blue Springs Police Department

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

There is not much WP:RS about this department other than spurious incidents such as [7] [8] [9]. No real WP:RS in the article. Has had tag about needing better referencing for six years. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 08:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

The first article appears to count towards notability (if it is acceptable WP:RS), but if this is all we have, it makes more sense to put that in Militarization of police. The others ones (about a crime map and the purchase of two motorcycles) is as trivial (and only of interest to those of the community) as the examples I gave.
My biggest concern is the lengthy article has much information and no sources to back it up--and I am not expecting any will be forthcoming. Hence, WP:TNT might apply. Rather than WP:TNT, I would be okay with moving the article to draft space until all the non-referenceable material is deleted -and- notability is also established.
As for WP:GEOLAND, Blue Springs, Missouri already has an article. I don't follow the argument about the police department being a "place". -- David Tornheim ( talk) 19:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The WP:GEOLAND point is because the BSPD has an inhabited jurisdictional area, it's not the strongest point though - that's the existence of significant coverage in RSs. FOARP ( talk) 12:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
@ BabbaQ: Huh? Which of these five resources do you claim meets our standard of reliable WP:SECONDARY?
  1. Bureau, U.S. Census. "American FactFinder - Search". factfinder.census.gov. Retrieved 2018-02-07.
  2. "Police Department | City of Blue Springs, MO - Official Website". www.bluespringsgov.com. Retrieved 2018-02-07.
  3. Media, Mile By Mile. "Blue Springs Police Dept in Blue Springs Missouri". www.road-police.com. Retrieved 2018-02-07.
  4. "IAFC Volunteer and Combination Officers Section - VCOS" (PDF). www.vcos.org. Retrieved 2018-02-07.
  5. BSPD Official Website - Organization
-- David Tornheim ( talk) 17:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup There are literally thousands of newspaper articles to sort through to improve this article (available in a news archives) and hundreds that have SIGCOV. I added a tiny handful of sources, but, frankly Deletion is not cleanup and I am happy to leave this as yet another undersourced, inadequate article on a notable topic in need of an editor. Just an an example of what is out there, however, anyone remember the moral panic over Goth subculture? Well, during that panic, the U.S. Congress earmarked a "$273,000 federal grant that U.S. Rep. Sam Graves had procured to study goth culture in Blue Springs, Missouri." George Bush fils wanted the money back to use for Pell Grants. The sutdy discovered that 35 kids at the high school were dressing Goth. Congressman Graves told a reporter that "They're doing self-mutilation, animal sacrifices, the sort of violent behavior and drug use that possibly could lead up to what happened at Columbine in 1999 with Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris." And this police dept became the poster child not only of a national moral panic but of a national funding debate. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete. North America 1000 04:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Junhel Dalanon

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

Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. According to Google Scholar, the subject has an h-index of 1, which is not enough to meet WP:NACADEMIC. Given that the subject appears to have worked in a rather niche field (development of dentistry in the Philippines), I would not be opposed to draftifying the article, but the article's initial creator does not appear to be active and I didn't wan to risk the article being sent to the draftspace dustbin without anyone seeing it. signed, Rosguill talk 19:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost ( talk) 07:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Those arguing to keep this have not demonstrated that the subject forms a cohesive whole that is clearly distinct from Silent letter and several other articles. I would be happy to refund this to the userspace of anyone who wishes to work on it further, or who wishes to develop content towards a merger. Vanamonde ( talk) 12:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Silent English alphabet

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

Article appears to be mostly original research based on a single source. Most of the claimed "silent" letters are actually part of dipthongs or digraphs. BilCat ( talk) 07:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • As the person who put up the page originally, I can confirm that there is no original research here, just material put together from the main cited source and other websites where I found related information. I didn't cite them all because I thought a page only required a minimum of one citation-- I see lots of pages with only one source. I have no connection to the source, it was just something I came across and thought should be on Wikipedia. I am very interested in alphabets (like the Cockney alphabet or the military alphabet), and I know I'm not alone in this, and it struck me that this was exactly the kind of thing I go looking for on Wikipedia. Like the List of names in English with counterintuitive pronunciations, which also links from the Silent letter page. It seemed a courtesy to Wikipedia users to make a separate list-like page rather than make the Silent letter page any longer by adding more examples.That said, I don't have a strong stake in how this goes down because I don't really understand the rationale for taking down a page that is properly sourced, that has been up since 2016, and that seems to have attracted a lot of interest in the form of edits. Valli Nagy 22:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
The main problem is that, as a whole, the article is Original Research and Synthesis. The initial sourced content could probably be a paragraph in another article, such as Silent letter, but I haven't checked that article to see if it would be appropriate, or if it's even there already. What you have done with this article is started with a concept, and then apparently did your own research to put together your own list. That is OR and synthesis. It may be interesting, and even fun, but it's not really encyclopedic, and I doubt a such a list ever will be. I'm not addressing whether or not the articles you copied the format are properly sourced or encyclopedic either, as that's not relevant to this discussion. My hunch is that they aren't. - BilCat ( talk) 07:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost ( talk) 07:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Silent letter already exists; this page simply lists examples. Cnilep ( talk) 02:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete i googled but it isn't returning anything instructive, notability isn't established in my mind. This may be OR or a word game I can't find. Szzuk ( talk) 20:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Rename. I have rewritten the article to focus on the historical reasons for widespread use of silent letters in English. I believe it should be renamed to allow users to find it. The proposed name is TBD. More than four sources have been added. I paired down the number of examples per letter with the goal of eliminating any diphthongs as silent letters. The remaining examples are taken from the Merriam-Webster reference, except as noted, and also except Milngavie which came from Wikipedia. Handkerchief is from the Merriam-Webster reference list. The remaining digraphs appear to result in one of the letters being truly silent. I look forward to your interpretations. I believe this should be associated with the silent letter article because this list points out the totality of silent letter use in English. The list also belongs in the category Lists of English words with uncommon properties. Regarding notability, I have found similar lists of words on websites by the Oxford University Press, Slippery Rock University, the ELT (English Language Teaching) Journal, and Merriam-Webster (the last two are sources of this article). In addition, there are a half dozen or so ESL and other teaching websites with lists such as this one. Overjive ( talk) 09:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as it stands the article does not make it obvious that it is based on a subset of American English. Readers from outside the US, particularly if non-native speakers, will be mislead or puzzled by some of the words included. It is highly contrived; for instance "v" which relies on a Scots word and a pronunciation of 5d/5p which is unknown outside the US. You would do better to apply some of the research to the main Silent letter page as an illustration rather than this stand alone page. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 10:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply
I modified the article to further highlight the use of US spelling and pronunciation in the list. You mention "a pronunciation of 5d/5p", and I have not been able to track down what the meaning of that. Is there a URL (or other info) that would clarify that description? Also, the article for Milngavie uses UK spelling, so if there is a more suitable pronunciation I will note that on the talk page of that article. Cheers, Overjive ( talk) 05:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC) reply
"5d" is the pre-decimal way of writing five pence, "5p" is the post-decimal way. Since you don't use pennies (as an official name at least) in the US, one assumes you were thinking of the UK currency unit. I can assure you that the "v" is definitely pronounced. The article on Milngavie may use English spelling, as does that on Beijing, but neither name is an English word. Using foreign words to illustrate English silent letters seems to me, at leat, to be a poor example. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 10:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Warhawk (Rex Stewart)

Warhawk (Rex Stewart) (  | 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 a notable character. Has made no appearances outside of the DC Animated Universe. The article has no secondary sources. There is no out of universe information in the article. JDDJS ( talk) 22:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost ( talk) 07:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Per G7. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 14:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Naman Ambavi

Naman Ambavi (  | 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 web developer / designer / entrepeneur / student. Fails to meet specific notability guidelines for biographies or the general notability guideline. No sources of any note found during due diligence. Jack Frost ( talk) 07:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Some day this young man may be notable, but I find no sign that day has come. — teb728 t c 08:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (possible A7/G11 speedy): A WP:SPA article on a recent graduate from high school, written with a promotional tone ("stunning websites", "huge projects", "creative, unique websites") and sourced to the subject's LinkedIn. Rightly rejected at AfC and moved to mainspace regardless. Previous attempts at speedy deletion have been removed by IP, indicating possible WP:SOCK concerns. No evidence of attained biographical notability. AllyD ( talk) 08:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Withdrawn by nominator. – Ammarpad ( talk) 12:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Wangchuk Namgyal

Wangchuk Namgyal (  | 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:NOTRS — Bukhari  (Talk!) 06:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 23:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Carmen L. Browne

Carmen L. Browne (  | 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 notability guideline. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 11:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Mary R. Bassett

Mary R. Bassett (  | 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 notability guideline. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete I have added some other titles, and some quotes from reviews of the books. I would have to say, though, that although they are from multiple independent reliable sources, she is not the primary subject of the reviews, so they don't count towards WP:ARTIST. A pity, but unless/until some other works publish more information about her, or another editor is aware of such sources offline, she does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 04:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep the included sources establish coverage in multiple sources. Coupled with the numerous plublicatons, I'll say she just makes it. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 08:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Keep I'm wondering if this needs actual library research. It seems like she's likely notable, perhaps is mentioned in books about American illustrators, but it might take some time to find. Is the author interested in draftifying? valereee ( talk) 12:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep My thinking is similar to that of Valereee. There is enough evidence currently in the article to suggest that there would be still further sources, hard to access because of their age, which would more conclusively establish notability. I acknowledge this is a bit speculative but this article is not promotional, does not present BLP issues, and so I err on the side of inclusion given the current evidence of notability. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • WP:HEYMANN KEEP, Kudos to RebeccaGreen and Megalibrarygirl for improving sources, but why Nom borught a 20th century illustrator to AfD without a proper WP:BEFORE I cannot fathom. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
@ DeltaQuad: In that case there's a good reason to consider if WP:NEXIST applies - you don't have to have the references to hand yourself, just know that they exist. AfD should always be a last option. Finally, @ TeriEmbrey: is exactly the kind of editor who we should be encouraging to contribute more to the project, as they appear to be in a position to obtain hard-to-get sources and have detail knowledge of those sources. If you spent your time to start six articles, and had them nominated for deletion in rapid succession with little explanation, would this encourage you to engage further with the project?
I think a good next step for you would be to consider whether to withdraw some or all of the AfD nominations given the sourcing that has been found, particularly by RebeccaGreen and Megalibrarygirl who have done excellent work here. FOARP ( talk) 08:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm absolutely willing to go over the sourcing as I get access to review all these new pay-walled sources. I would have been willing to engage Teri, but the last time I did, they blanked the thread on their talkpage, so I didn't have much of an option to communicate, just a WP:OWN with them being part of the GLAM program, with seemingly no improvement over a month. So I find it particularly hard to encourage someone in that circumstance. And yes, I've now learned that news articles could be of great benefit and is why I have requested access to newspapers.com. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is clear that subject meets WP:NAUTHOR. (non-admin closure) Ifnord ( talk) 03:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Alice Cooper Bailey

Alice Cooper Bailey (  | 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 notability guideline. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Same comment as in the other AfD proposals posted today: this is unhelpful. We are given no indication that WP:BEFORE was performed. This is one of several AfD proposals posted at the same time with the same short-sentence rationale by the same editor. FOARP ( talk) 17:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP Per WP:BASIC and WP:NEXIST. There are at least three books about authors that have chapters or paragraph-length entries about her. Whilst I do not have access to these books as they are not online, it appears that notability can be sustained. See here: 1 2 3 FOARP ( talk) 17:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have found reviews of most of the books in digitised newspapers, as well as articles about the writer. With the sources already in the article, plus one that FOARP also found, it is plenty to meet WP:AUTHOR. I will try to add some of the references to the article, as I have already done with two of the other 6 articles AfDed by the same nom on the same day, with the exact same wording. (If there is not a limit on how many AfDs one person can do on one day, there should be!) RebeccaGreen ( talk) 17:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
I note that all six of the articles AfD'd appear to have been written by User:TeriEmbrey who the nom appears to be in a dispute with. This is unhelpful to the editors who work on AfD, if WP:BEFORE was done then tell us what you found/didn't find and give us more to work with. FOARP ( talk) 17:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment on the content, not continuously slapping a person with a trout. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
hi Amanda, some editors may see E.M.Gregory's comment as a bit harsh, although as someone who has followed/been involved with afds for a few years i can also see their annoyance/frustration(?) when editors instigate 1/2 a dozen afds in 5mins with an unhelpful "fails notability" and not much else, ie. no apparent indication that nominator has looked at alternatives such as searching for sources, raising concerns on article talkpage/with article creator/relevant wikiprojects, tagging article, that said we're all volunteers and i hope we can sit down and enjoy a cup of tea together. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Coolabahapple: Absolutely I can see how it would cause annoyance and frustration that I didn't explain much, but I always check as much as I can before hand on each individual article. I checked all first and then nominated all. The comments I made could have been more explained. I've learned that lesson, and also requested access to newspapers.com so I can run what people have found before. And I am not concerned about one trout, but they have put it on each AfD, so I've been trouted 6 times now by one editor. So that's why I pointed to a common principle. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Just for the record, there were only 2 TROUT. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ifnord ( talk) 03:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Ve Elizabeth Cadie

Ve Elizabeth Cadie (  | 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 notability guideline. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I have added some references and quotes to the article. I think there is more to be found, as a 1932 article said her "originality is causing quite a stir in art and industry", and a 1938 article described her as a "prominent designer". However, I'm in Australia, and the databases I have access to focus on Australia, so I hope someone with access to US sources can add more. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 08:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a borderline case but the absence of a proper delete rationale and the provision of references by RebeccaGreen leans me towards keeping. I could flip to delete if the nom offers a properly argued rationale for deleting. FOARP ( talk) 18:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep She was also an inventor with two patents to her name. (Reference added) -- the eloquent peasant ( talk) 20:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, meets WP:GNG, now reflected by the well referenced article, a big well done! to the above editors:) ps. i want The Cat Whose Whiskers Slipped (1st ed. of course:)), it looks like a wonderful book:)) Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep, based on the numerous book publications. The patents are irrelevant, unless they had become widely distributed designs. Anyone can get a patent. I removed two overzealous sources (art.com and bonanza.com) that were actually just pages advertising one of her books for sale. Pages selling items on bonanza.com are not WP:RS. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 08:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: WP:RS explicitly states "inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times." Both of those pages were archives of past sales, and simply verify that she designed covers for the magazine. They do not contribute to notability, obviously, but there is no reason not to include them. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 05:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, same reasons as above (especially now improved article, & likelihood of more sources emerging). One minor pt: according to WorldCat, at least 1 of the books Cadie illustrated was translated into Spanish & her illustrations were included. (Perhaps additional evidence of significant collective body of work as per WP:BIO?) Regarding her patents, I see that one was cited by patent examiners in a later application (maybe that's not meaningful). I do think more may turn up about her design work across fields given those patents, & that seems notable for an American woman working in the 1930s (the reason we have pages like List of inventions and discoveries by women, after all). MNmagistra ( talk) 11:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
This is obviously goign to be a keep, but let's be real about the patents. The first patent issued to a female inventor was given to Mary_Dixon_Kies in 1809, and that is obviously notable for many reasons if you check the article. The subject of this article has two patents for an insulated coffee pot handle. Nobody is going to go down in history for having invented an insulated coffee pot handle, especially when Google patents shows 245,000 results related to patents on coffee pots. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 13:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
OT but as a patent attorney I can tell you that there are many millions of patents in existence (the Derwent database holds 110 million applications, granted patents, formal notices and other documents), and that it is very common for them to be cited as prior art against subsequent applications. FOARP ( talk) 07:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 19:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Robert A. King (composer)

Robert A. King (composer) (  | 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 notability guideline. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. @ User:DeltaQuad it is very, very unhelpful to post multiple AfD proposals with identical rationales for deletion that do not give assessors even the slightest indication that you have done even the most basic work necessary WP:BEFORE you can justify wiping out the work of other editors, nor any idea why you believe the article should be deleted. You're saying only that this "fails the notability guideline", but not how. Sources are given on the page - why are these deficient for sustaining notability? I have no idea based on what you've told us. I see you're an experienced editor which makes this even harder to understand. FOARP ( talk) 16:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ FOARP: I don't have much time right now to go through all the AFDs, but I will spill out the WP:BEFORE for this one.
  1. I have read Wikipedia policies and understand them.
  2. This is not a speedy deletion candidate.
  3. Searches through websites do not how the specific guideline for creative professionals is satisfied.
  4. All additional checks don't yield anything.
  5. Improving doesn't address inherit notability issues.
  6. I already talked about sources.
-- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:NEXIST. I believe sources exist to sustain the notability of this composer. This is a very complicated issue since King appears to have written under a large number of pseudonyms, but searching under Robert Keiser (another pseudonym of King - or even his real name?) brought up a number of sources that are not available in full online but appear to discuss him in detail. These sources appear to be independent RS's. See particularly 1 2 FOARP ( talk) 16:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • WP:SNOW Keep conspicuous notability: multiple bluelinked songs, discussed in books about songwriters of the era. Yet another in an inexplicable series of rapid-fire AfD nominations of notable writers, artists and composers by an editor who appears not to have considered WP:BEFORE. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Multiple editors have confirmed that this is not a hoax. (non-admin closure) Andrew D. ( talk) 13:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

William Smellie (geologist)

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

There are other William Smellies, but this article seems slightly suspicious with only a couple indistinct references. I suspect this article possibly was hoaxed because of the humorous surname. ~Sıgehelmus♗ (Tøk) 06:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: William R Smellie's "Igneous Rocks of Bute" can be seen to be published and subsequently cited by others: [10]. AllyD ( talk) 10:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep: The hoax rationale for the nomination is negated by the published Royal Society of Edinburgh reference which confirms the subject's fellowship and curatorial appointment. In addition to the publication noted in my earlier comment (on which see also this), others can be found such as this review in the Geological Magazine. There are also listings such as this (which also shows the relative frequency of the name - off topic, but I think someone I knew as "Mrs Smeel" actually had that unfortunate surname.) AllyD ( talk) 10:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep Serious failure of WP:BEFORE: The Royal Society of Edinburgh is hardly an "indistinct reference" (whatever that means), and clearly shows William Robert Smellie as a member. Additionally, there are details of his role as curator in The Life and Work of Professor J.W. Gregory FRS (1864-1932), Geologist [11], and there's an obituary in the Proceedings of the Geological Society of Glasgow [12]. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 12:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Firm consensus after WP:HEY work by RebeccaGreen that notability is satisfied (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear ( talk) 21:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Elizabeth O. Hiller

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

Still does not assert notability even after leaving it for a month. Author does not wish to discuss the issue. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I have added references, including articles dating from 1899 to 1987, about her books, courses, lectures and demonstrations. The article already included sources from 1917-2009. I believe these show that she meets WP:CREATIVE #1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." and #3 "The person has created .. a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." She was clearly regarded as a notable / prominent / leading cook and domestic science lecturer, and her work continued to be reviewed in independent sources (eg the New York Daily News, the Lansing State Journal). RebeccaGreen ( talk) 14:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per RebeccaGreen. FOARP ( talk) 18:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Chant (band)

Chant (band) (  | 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 claim to notability and I can't find any. Fails WP:GNG but passes pure advertisement. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Final ASP

Final ASP (  | 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 don’t think this passes WP:ORG Mccapra ( talk) 09:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord ( talk) 05:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 04:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

MChat!

MChat! (  | 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 Mccapra ( talk) 11:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord ( talk) 05:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Per A7. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 14:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Owen Cusac

Owen Cusac (  | 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 appear to be notable as I don't believe that Instagram followers is an indication of notability JC7V ( talk) 04:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

If someone is notable enough for Famous Birthdays, they are notable for Wikipedia. Pop culture has much relevance. User:spacewriter3002 —Preceding undated comment added 06:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Being listed on Famous Birthdays is not an indicator of notability per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. To be notable per Wikipedia's notability guidelines, a subject requires significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources which Owen Cusac does not have. JC7V ( talk) 06:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost ( talk) 07:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lourdes 08:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

ViSenze

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

Insufficient sources for notability on its own. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 18:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 18:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 18:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lourdes 08:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Faryal Makhdoom

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

No evidence for notability. The references are social gossip about her relationship with someone who is actually notable. The relevant policy is NOT TABLOID. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Lourdes 08:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Yash Wadali

Yash Wadali (  | 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 seem to be notable enough to have a wiki article, lack of coverage on reliable recourses Shringhringshring ( talk) 00:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 01:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 01:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 00:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lourdes 08:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Sergei Kurilov

Sergei Kurilov (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_December_15&oldid=1142616850"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE