The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
not notable, andpromotional Over-personal article, presumably with some kind of COI. The references are almost entirely to items he has written himself, except for an item in his university's alumni publication, not usually considered a sufficient reliable source for notability . DGG (
talk )
23:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Nothing stated in the article is an automatic pass of any Wikipedia notability criterion in the absence of enough
reliable source coverage to clear
WP:GNG, but the sourcing here doesn't clear GNG. The only source here that's about him in any non-trivial way is the alumni newsletter of his own alma mater, which is not a notability-assisting source, and everything else is a directory listing, a piece of his own writing or a source in which he's trivially namechecked as a giver of soundbite in an article about some other topic. A person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of reliable source coverage, not by getting quoted in coverage of other things or by being the author of his own sources.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
KEEP A search at google books turned up a number of good refs that speak to his notability (for example receiving the Moti award 2003 AD for their work and effort in Nepali art and literature and his impact on Nepalese art described in a book titled "Facing Globalization in the Himalayas: Belonging and the Politics of the Self".--
NerudaPoet (
talk)
20:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep I don't recall creating this article, and I don't have a lot of energy to argue against deletion, but
this source also describes him as "one of Nepal's most prolific commercial directors".
Calliopejen1 (
talk)
00:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Nothing cited in the article counts towards
WP:GNG, and I can find nothing better online, only his own promotional websites and suchlike. The best independent source is a blog about Elliott running "scams". Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a
WP:SPA.
Edwardx (
talk)
22:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete: An article with a history of
WP:SPA accounts alternately adding and removing material about particular financial ventures which the subject may have promoted. But I am not seeing a substantial claim to notability, not
WP:RS evidence. The Canadian Business article may be the most substantial but doesn't demonstrate encyclopaedic notability of any individual discussed there. Fails
WP:BASIC,
WP:GNG.
AllyD (
talk)
08:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - He has played in one first-class cricket match and passes notability criteria. There isn't any dead link in the article as ESPN Cricinfo and Cricket Archive always be accurate in the process of collecting information.
Abishe (
talk)
11:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment I've fixed the first reference using web.archive.org, and it's a profile in a national newspaper. I can see a lot more on her online in Nepali, including what looks like television appearances, but will leave it to editors with more knowledge of Nepali media to judge on whether there are sufficient
WP:RS.
The Mighty Glen (
talk)
23:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep as per the rationale posted by Megalibrarygirl. The are many sources and references available, and of course they don't have to be in the article yet, just available. This article needs expansion not deletion.
Antonioatrylia (
talk)
21:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No opposition on my part, but this wouldn't be a merger so much as a mere mention of this (outdated) terminology on these pages. I'm indifferent as to where to redirect to. Sandstein 16:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
All the references links are dead expect third ref link but the sites includes another artist name called "Prakash Gurung" so this page should be deleted.
SeytX (
talk)
22:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
All the references links of the articles are dead and the artist is not notable. I strongly think it should be removed from Wikipedia.
SeytX (
talk)
22:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not Reliable References and the references of kathmandu post doesnt enlist name Devika Bandana in the news. I review the article and found it doesn't meet wikipedia notable artist policy. So it should be removed from wikipedia.
SeytX (
talk)
22:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy Delete. Looks like a hoax to me. Some modern people are named Elio Daou. Eliojah Daan is plausible for the period, but would be more of an Israelite name - but due to
Tribe of Dan and the double-
Theophoric name using the Israelite form (
El (deity) +
Theophory in the Bible#Yah theophory. Phoenicians would be more likely to be using
Baal (as in
Hannibal) and a few other suffixes. I don't see sources for this, and some other details do not add up - e.g. the gladiatorial aspect and being the Butcher of Kallas - Kallas seeming to be used in Estonia.
Ziyad (a common modern day (and post Islam) Arabic name) would be a highly unlikely name for his father.
Icewhiz (
talk)
09:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Snow delete as failing
WP:V. As an example, even the title of the citation for the book "Who's Who in the Greek World" has been changed to "Who's Who in the Persian World" and links to a random unrelated page
[3].
24.151.116.12 (
talk)
17:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete - as noted above all of the evidence points to this being a hoax. Aside from the problems identified above it is highly unlikely that any sources from the time would reveal some of the details here or that subsequent scholars would speculate on them (eg that his wife was childless as she had ovarian cancer)
Dunarc (
talk)
20:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Nothing stated in the article constitutes an automatic free pass over our notability standards for broadcasters just because he exists, but the article is not
reliably sourced well enough to get him over
WP:GNG for it — all of the references are either
primary sources, or brief blurbs which aren't substantive enough to count as GNG-assisting coverage.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of
WP:SIGCOV. Fails
WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a
WP:SPA. Plenty of stuff about him out there, but all written by him or one of his companies.
Edwardx (
talk)
20:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Mere PROMO for a nonnotable "national expert" (in branding and marketing.) His "book" is a selfpublished e-book described on the page as "available free" for downloading.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
16:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as mere PROMO unsupported by
WP:RS. Lede reads: "an entrepreneur, consultant and author, with the bulk of his clients being American." Problem is, there are no verifiable, independent sources. He is described as "Fatt is the former Marketing Editor for the Hospitality News.," a non-notable job, sourced only to Hospitality News. Article also asserts that "Fatt has been featured in..." a list of publicattions that includes at least one WP:RS, the Rocky Mountain News, problem is, the citation is to "“The Street Smart Secret To Getting New Customers To Your Restaurant. Hospitality News Rocky Mtn. States Edition, pg. 9." which is not the
rocky Mountain News, but the publication Fatt worked for. He may have written this ad other articles listed, in non-notable publications. There is no indication of notability and no SIGCOV.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
16:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Nothing here is a strong claim to passing our notability standards for entrepreneurs, consultants or writers, and all of the sourcing in the article is complete crap with nary a hint of even one
reliable source for the purposes of clearing
WP:GNG. I can't prove it outright, but this is exactly the sort of "trying really hard but completely missing the boat" article that normally pings my
conflict of interest radar.
Bearcat (
talk)
01:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Cannot find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of
WP:SIGCOV. Fails
WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article. I have checked out the references, and they are mentions in passing or press releases at best. Nothing found elsewhere.
Edwardx (
talk)
20:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Lorenzo is the author of three books. His latest book is titled The 60 Second Sale and will be published by John Wiley & Sons - a worldwide publisher of business books. The book's ISBN is 9781119499763.[1]
Argument against deletion: Lorenzo is an expert on sales. He is the published author of three books the most recent due out in July 2018 and published by large United States publishing house. I have edited the page to reflect this. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Lawrencedaniel1999 (
talk •
contribs)
18:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - borderline spam, heavily promotional article about person who does not meet
WP:NAUTHOR nor
WP:GNG. Maybe he is an expert on sales, but that's not part of any of Wikipedia's notability criteria. Most published authors are not notable according to Wikipedia's definition. --bonadeacontributionstalk18:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment the article stinks of promotional editing. I don't see any good references that support a keep, apart from the 40 under 40, it's press releases, Youtube videos, blog posts by him, etc.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
00:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as PROMO. Alleged "best selling" book, Change Agents, may have hit some best-selletr list or other, but I can find no reviews or SIGCOV of it or of Sutherlin.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
16:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Ridiculously promotional copy, i.e. known for popularizing automotive digital marketing in the automobile industry. sourced to his own press release. No refs that suggest notability, I think his book was from a vanity house.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
00:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The "delete" arguments mostly centered around the lack of in-depth, reliable sources. Another argument was that the school had no physical presence, which was disproven. The "keep" votes point to the existence of reliable sources, such that the article meets
WP:V , and noting that secondary education articles have traditionally had a lower "entry barrier", a precedent for which there has been no consensus to overturn. There seems to be no consensus if the reliable sources surpass mere local attention, or the degree of depth of coverage. Overall the consensus based on arguments is "keep" for this topic (meaning this particular high school, not high schools in general), but it is not a strong consensus.
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions)17:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. It's not that we presume notability for high schools, rather, we have the practice of normally keeping them as if they were notable; this is part of a compromise to normally not keep elementary schools. The purpose is to avoid the otherwise consequent thousands of debates. Before we had the compromise, I (and others) could generally source about 1/2 the highschools well enough to keep, and perhaps 1/4 of the elementary schools *somewhat better than that in NYC). The RfC of schooloutcomes said there was no consensus to change the practice of generally keeping high schools (It also said there was no consensus that quoting schooloutcomes was enough of an argument--yes, these two findings are somewhat contradictory, but in cases of doubt, we follow the status quo ) (And I will admit that some people do interpret that AfC otherwise, and they are entitled to their views, even though I think they're not analyzing it properly. As an admin, I alway give very conservative advice, but in a discussion, I think I have the actual responsibility to give whatI think the correct interpretation. ). There is furthermore a reasonable amount of sourcing for this one. Perhaps ones that merely appear on a list might be candidates for removal, if we could get consensus on that--it might be an acceptable compromise. I, at any rate, normally do ~vote delete if there's nothing more than presence on a list, because that isn't enough verification. I usually will support any compromise that gets articles out of AfD, even if I don;t quite agree it's the best compromise possible. DGG (
talk )
11:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Can't see significant coverage and the school is tiny. I take the point about other high schools failing [[WP:SIGCOV}}, but the size and lack of real physical campus of this school seems to make it a special case.
Tacyarg (
talk)
10:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Hello
Tacyarg -- I acknowledge your argument that there is insufficient press coverage of the school, but I disagree. The Denver Post and Colorado Public Radio are reliable sources. Size, however, is specious argument.
Monaco should be deleted from WP because of its tiny size. The school does have a physical presence, even if students are not required to be there.
Tennessee Virtual Academy if it had an article, has 634 students. It is no less a school than any other.
Rhadow (
talk)
12:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Consensus for keeping high schools has not changed (RfC was no consensus). But more so, the CPR story is a fine RS. It has around five paragraphs on this topic. The rest is either in-passing or non-independent I'd say. But it is a high school and it has one solid independent reliable source with plenty of non-independent sourcing we can use for facts.
Hobit (
talk)
06:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Whether or not high schools are inherently notable, there's an established low barrier to entry which this article meets. Namely, based on RS (incidental mentions in the Denver Post, a more substantive mention on
Colorado Public Radio, and a listing on the
Denver Public Schools website) we can do the bare minimum of proving it actually exists which - while not normally sufficient - seems to be for secondary schools.
Chetsford (
talk)
18:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete the rule for high schools only works with institutions that have a physical presence. For institutions that only exist online, they need to be judged by general institutional notability standards, and this institution fails those standards.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
15:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:BLP, not referenced to any strong
reliable source coverage about him, of a filmmaker with no strong claim to passing
WP:CREATIVE. The notability claim here is that he was one of 11 winners of an amateur filmmaking award from his local film festival for a three-minute short film, and the source for that is a mere blurb which mentions his name while failing to actually be about him, and the only other "reference" here is his own self-published YouTube profile. None of this, neither the sourcing nor the substance, is valid grounds for a Wikipedia article.
Bearcat (
talk)
06:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
A person does not automatically qualify for a Wikipedia article just because one source for it exists in their local newspaper. A person qualifies for a Wikipedia article by having a broad range of coverage in a variety of newspapers, not just the moment they have one piece of coverage in an exclusively local context.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
None of the sources are in depth coverage of the subject. At best they are passing mentions and some don't even mention her name. Fails
WP:NACTOR and
WP:GNG. Most of her roles aren't named and she is billed as mother of x, wife of y etc
Dom from Paris (
talk)
13:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Could you please tell us which were significant roles in notable films as per NACTOR please? And which sources meet GNG as per relationship between subject specific criteria and GNG. ? When you !vote it is useful to explain more in detail your reasons
Dom from Paris (
talk)
10:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete -- does not meet
WP:NACTOR and significant RS coverage not found. Roles are all minor; commercial work does not help with ACTOR either. Wikipedia is not a resume hosting service.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
01:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article is on a salesman at On The Run Shoes, a sports retail store in San Francisco, California, and is sourced to the store's website, and profile pages on some body building social media sites. Does not pass the NATHLETE or GNG at this time.
Chetsford (
talk)
20:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is apparently the campus library of an unknown university in India. In my BEFORE I was unable to even identify which university it belongs to via RS, however, via non-RS it appears it belongs to Al-Maqar Dawa College which - itself - doesn't have a WP article to which this could be merged and/or redirected. Fails GNG.
Chetsford (
talk)
19:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Not a noteworthy minor library. I feel it is also a candidate for Speedy deletion. I have tagged as such. Let us see if it gets speedied. --Hagennos❯❯❯Talk13:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak delete - On newspapers.com, I find a couple routine mentions of where he was stationed in the USN (he retired a commander). His obituary is also in the Baltimore Sun, which carried a few other passing social mentions. I don't see enough that would allow for a clearly NPOV article about him, though. Although the current article doesn't mention it, I'm going to add this to the Military delsort list as he was a Naval commander and perhaps someone watching that list would be interested. I would say that his uncle, Dr. Brice W. Goldsborough, might be suitable for an article in the future. That Brice was an interesting medical doctor and a co-founder of the Cambridge, Maryland Hospital, which became Dorchester General Hospital and is now University of Maryland Shore Regional Health.
Smmurphy(
Talk)18:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment. If it was a full obituary as opposed to just a notice of death, then an obit in the Washington Post should satisfy notability requirements. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
15:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure if that is true. I am generally happy for people to believe it, because I think that multiple sources covering an individual should include small newspapers, and often an individuals only coverage in a large paper will be an obituary. But my feeling is that the an obituary is one event, and I'd like to see coverage for other events. For instance in this case, Goldsborough has high enough profiles due to his relationships or public positions (son of a governor, commander in the Navy) that his obituary is nationally covered (
newspapers.com gives versions in Baltimore, Wilmington, and Des Moines). To me, the Baltimore Sun and Des Moines Tribune are both regionally respected newspapers and reliable sources, of only slightly lower stature than the Post (especially before the contraction of news desks in the 2000s). To me, then, all I would need to see is in-depth coverage at another period. All I find are passing mentions, mentions of his uncle, and his wife's obituary.
[4]Smmurphy(
Talk)16:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Not all by itself, no. It would certainly be a valid source in an article that was well-sourced to a solid range and depth of coverage, but it doesn't singlehandedly confer a
WP:GNG pass all by itself as an article's only source.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. I was able to find this
[5]. Seems he rose up to be an embassy attache. A death notice is not enough, even if it is WaPo (and particularly so since he was a Washington area (state dept.) son of an important person (Maryland) - which would make this possibly WaPo local coverage).
Icewhiz (
talk)
08:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. It's certainly possible that he might have a stronger notability claim than this article actually states or sources — but being an embassy attaché is not an automatic Wikipedia inclusion freebie in and of itself, and one death notice is not enough sourcing to get him over
WP:GNG for it. I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody can actually find enough sourcing to write more substance about him than just the fact that he existed, but nothing here is enough.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Of someone ever wants to transwiki then I will undelete for them to do it but transaction has become deprecated anyway as it's often is dumping our rubbish on other wikis who generally don't respond well to that...
SpartazHumbug!05:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)reply
WP:DICDEF of a term, flagged for transfer to Wiktionary since 2014 without the transwiki actually occurring. Four years isn't okay: we need to either force it or dump it now.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Query Is there a policy or guideline dealing with the time period for transwiki requests? My initial thought would be that, as long as the information is sourced and not harmful in some way such as a copyright violation, this situation would be analogous to the reasoning of the essay
WP:NODEADLINE and the policy
WP:PRESERVE.
24.151.116.12 (
talk)
16:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
There's no formal deadline spelled out in policy, but that doesn't mean we have infinite patience for things that aren't happening — it's a pretty well established consensus that even if there isn't a formal deadline per se, things still have to happen within a reasonable amount of time.
Bearcat (
talk)
04:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:BLP of a photographer, formatted as a
résumé rather than an encyclopedia article and not referenced to any
reliable source coverage about him. An artist does not get an automatic pass over
WP:NARTIST (or even
WP:ANYBIO) just by bulletpointing a
primary sourced list of awards -- an award counts as a notability claim only to the extent that it can be
reliably sourced to media coverage about the granting of that award, and not if the only possible source is the award's own self-published website about itself -- and the only other references here are his own website, a short blurb on the corporate
blog of a commercial stock-photo service, and primary source copies of his photographs themselves. Notability for Wikipedia purposes is determined by being the subject of media coverage, not just by being able to primary-source that the person exists -- but there's no evidence of media coverage being shown here.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Sure, I'm not denying that Getty Images is a serious operation. But it's not a media outlet, so blurbing a photographer on its corporate blog doesn't constitute GNG-assisting media coverage.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I get you, and I appreciate your highly thoughtful AfD arguments. I still think that being a Getty staff photog counts for something, GNG-wise, in the sense that they only take very serious types. I also think our photog is probably notable but there are inadequate published sources to demonstrate it.
104.163.148.25 (
talk)
01:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: He's had at least one photobook published.
Here's the publisher's blurb about it. This doesn't prove notability, of course; but it does make me wonder if the feebleness of the current article results in part from its creators' incompetence. --
Hoary (
talk)
00:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
promotional and at most borderline notable. Part of a PR effort which includes the article on the founder, and an attempt to add advertising links for their various services .and other people connected with the company DGG (
talk )
18:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Firstly, as DGG says, the article is promotional. (It was created by an editor with a history of creating promotional articles, beyond all reasonable doubt an undisclosed paid editor.) Secondly, there is a total lack of evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The references include several press releases, pages about the individual partners who own the company (not about the company), pages which merely include the company in a list, and so on. My own searches produced the company's own web site, this Wikipedia article, more press releases, LinkedIn, etc etc: nothing even suggesting notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
JamesBWatson" (
talk)
11:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
promotional and at most borderline notable. Part of a PR effort which includes the article on the firm, and an attempt to add advertising links for his various services . DGG (
talk )
18:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Firstly, the article is blatant promotion. (It was created by an editor with a history of creating promotional articles, beyond all reasonable doubt an undisclosed paid editor.) Secondly, there is a total lack of evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This is an example of
bombarding an article with numerous references in the hope that will give the impression of being well-sourced, but with none of the references contributing evidence of notability. From the 20 references I took a random sample of six of them, as there is a limit to how much time I am willing to spend on analysing a spam article. The six references were as follows. An article in which Sichenzia contributes opinions about the subject of the article, not an article about him; a report published by a company for which he has worked as an editor, so it may be written by him, and in any case it is not an independent source; a dead link, but judging both from the title of the link and the context in which it is cited in the article it was (a) about his company, not about him, and (b) merely a listing of the company in a table, not substantial coverage; a YouTube video which I haven't watched, but from the context in which it is mentioned in the article it is Sichenzia giving his opinion, not coverage about him; a page behind a paywall which I haven't read, but once again from the context in which it is mentioned in the article it is Sichenzia giving his opinion, not coverage about him; a list of nineteen participants in giving a course, Sichenzia being one of the nineteen. Unless I happen by remarkable bad luck to have randomly selected six very atypical references, there is a serious lack of evidence of notability. What is more, my own search failed to find anything better. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
JamesBWatson" (
talk)
11:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Question: Considering the last AFD (with basically the same deletion rationale) closed as unanimous keep less than a month ago, why do you feel the guidance at
Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion or
WP:ATD do not apply here? Also, why do you think renominating for deletion instead of adding the sources mentioned at the last AFD was preferable? Last but not least, how was
WP:BEFORE followed in this case? Regards
SoWhy18:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep the last AFD was in January. The result was keep. The retail chain hasn't suddenly become less notable. Loads of sources with substantial coverage identified during the last nomination. Why are we wasting time on another?
FloridaArmy (
talk)
19:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I disagree, she clearly meets
WP:BASIC at the very least. But as long as her article exists, redirecting/merging would always be the better option. Since you have come back to this nomination btw, would you mind answering my question above why you felt it necessary to renominate this less than a month after the last AFD closed without addressing any of the reasons why the article was kept the last time? Regards
SoWhy08:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. I find it tiring that nowadays "it's a press release!" without proof is deemed sufficient to delete articles about notable subjects. When we no longer accept The Times or The New York Times as reliable sources, what is left? There are dozens of sources about the company and its founder just a short Google search away:
Delete That's funny because I was only thinking to myself that I find it tiring that nowadays reasons such as "but look at all the times it gets mentioned", without bothering to check if it meets the criteria for establishing notability, is trotted out at practically every company-related AfD. This is little more than another version of
WP:GHITS only instead of listing the total, some of the links are posted instead. Articles like
this one from telegraph.co.uk and
and this one that you posted above, filled with intellectually independent gems such as "The White Company said", "the company said", "In a further change set to be announced today", "The group said", "Mrs Rucker said", "Ms Alford-Burnett said", "The group said", "The retailer said", Tpatricia Alford-Burnett, managing director, said", etc. Seriously, the criteria for establishing notability are there for a reason - one of them being to avoid relying on PRIMARY sources (whether published in reliable secondary sources or not) as sources to establish notability. You also appear to suggest that editors claim the sources are not reliable - again I believe that demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding (on your part) on what the intention of the criteria for establishing notability says and what editors who are following those guidelines are saying. None, as far as I can tell, are saying that the sources are not reliable. What is being said is that an article based extensively on a company announcement or press release is considered to fail the criteria for establishing notability, regardless of whether it is published in a reliable secondary source with no corporate connection with the topic company. None of the references produced meet the criteria, the references fail
WP:CORPDEPTH and/or (more often) fail
WP:ORGIND. Topic therefore fails GNG and
WP:NCORP HighKing++ 10:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Which basically proves my point. "Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH /
WP:ORGIND /
WP:NCORP /
WP:GNG" is the most standard !vote in such AFDs and rarely really fits.
WP:GNG says [i]f a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list and all three requirements are fulfilled here:
Even you agree that the sources are reliable, so that is not problematic.
Per GNG's definition, "significant coverage" is all coverage where the topic is directly covered in detail. That's the case for example with
[12][13][14][15] and others.
So at least some of the sources are suffient to establish notability per GNG which is why while I'm always happy to discuss such issues rationally, I fail to see how GNG is not met in this case. On a side note, you also failed to answer the question why
WP:ATD is not preferable even if you were right. Regards
SoWhy11:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Minor correction: Re "None, as far as I can tell, are saying that the sources are not reliable", The Daily Mail is unreliable as a source for anything -- see
WP:DAILYMAIL, and Drapers Online is not reliable for establishing notability, because they will gladly cover any company in the fashion business, no matter how obscure. Yet these were touted as evidence of notability in the first AfD and nobody bothered to check them. That's reason enough to post a new AfD in my opinion. --
Guy Macon (
talk)
16:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment are we done here? This looks like a remarkably short-sighted nomination, especially given that the last AFD was concluded less than three weeks ago. I'm shocked that the nominator is a member of Arbcom, I had expected these elected individuals to know better than to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
20:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The last AFD was concluded less than three weeks ago with very little evidence of notability. While the consensus is clearly to keep, the evidence is still marginal. --
Guy Macon (
talk)
01:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Notable as a recipient of his nation's highest level award, the title Hero of the Soviet Union, regardless of the amount of propaganda in these sources. The propaganda issue can be fixed by attributing the potentially controversial statements.
Kges1901 (
talk)
21:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article written like an advertisement; company not notable, originating author blocked for sockpuppetry and undisclosed payments.
BrxBrx(
talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})17:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
delete I just did what i could try to make this into an article, but there is surprisingly little solid reporting about this company and its business. Given the promotional pressure and the blatant stock-flogging, delete this.
Jytdog (
talk)
04:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Note: I have no opinion, but the link cited by Andy Dingley above contains the text "Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting." --
Jayron3217:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
No, it's a CSD reason, or at least a snow delete. But Jayron is keen to keep it, so he removed the speedy. If AIRCRASH can't be applied here, then that's at variance to the rest of all the deleted aircrash articles, even those with multiple fatalities, where it is seemingly inevitable.
He removed a CSD tag that had an invalid rationale. That doesn't mean he'd vote keep. Frankly you're attitude here is making it less likely that I'd vote delete, and I'm the one who tagged the article for notability. Pick an actual deletion rationale or I'll say it should be kept. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
18:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak delete per
WP:TOOSOON. A similar incident to
Air France Flight 66, but this isn't an
WP:OSE argument: the coverage of that flight extended into the weeks. I think it's likely notable if the news coverage is durational, but we don't know that yet. By the time this AfD closes, it may well be notable. Not a great article at the moment, but not as obvious a delete as the nominator seems to believe it is on WP:N grounds.
SportingFlyer (
talk)
18:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Air France Flight 66 is a weak case for notability and probably wouldn't survive AfD. Nor would
Qantas Flight 32. However they were also
uncontained engine failures, something which is just not supposed to happen, especially not on such a new aircraft type. So they have a reasonable claim for notability, for their technical aspects, rather than their newsworthiness. This event though - despite being described in the article as an
uncontained engine failure (it isn't), and added to that article (it isn't) - this event was nothing like so serious.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
18:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The distinction between the seriousness of an uncontained engine failure vs. a near complete mid-flight removal of the engine cowling seems like an arbitrary one, especially when we have no credible accident investigators or aircraft engineers publicly stating that this incident was in fact "not serious" (and, again, many significant secondary sources do seem to have decided that it was significant, and will most likely do followup stories as details emerge). --
Eherot (
talk)
18:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Err..... No. Serious difference. You don't need the cowlings to fly. More importantly, a cowling falling off doesn't have the energy to seriously damage the main structure of the aircraft. A rotating engine core very much does - which is why it's kept inside an armoured bucket. If that bucket fails to do its job, that's very serious.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
18:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
There's been extensive coverage over months of both Air France 66 and Qantas 32, and Qantas 32 survived an AfD right after the incident. I don't think we'll get here with this one - I think it'll go away after the news cycle. If this sticks in the news coverage, I'd change my vote. Notability doesn't have anything to do with what separates from what part of the aircraft.
SportingFlyer (
talk)
19:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep - Everything cited here as a reason for deletion suggests that notability is strongly related to the number of secondary sources covering the issue and how long it is expected to remain in the news. Currently Google turns up over 2,600 news-related hits for this incident and the NYT has deigned to grant it multiple days of coverage on their front page. What's more: This article is almost certain to receive future front-page coverage in multiple global news sources as new details emerge. I and many others prefer to go to Wikipedia for these details because it is less likely to parrot unconfirmed speculation. Lastly, there are few examples of major engine malfunctions (where parts fell off of the airplane in mid flight) on large, commercial airliners where the incident did not turn out to have historical significance with ultimately thousands of people seeking to read the associated Wikipedia entry. --
Eherot (
talk)
18:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep - The article clearly satisfies
WP:GNG. It states that 'if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list', this itself is a reason to keep the page. Moreover, the given sources have exclusive articles on the incident which clearly states that it is a popular aviation accident and is investigates by FAA and NTSB.
AyaanLamar (
talk)
18:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - the article has no established lasting impact, and the current wave of coverage by reliable sources can be attributed to the fact that this is a news story now. However, per
WP:NOTNEWS and
WP:RECENTISM, this is not grounds for the maintenance of an article. It is also worth noting that whatever momentary coverage of the crash does exist is only a result of the fact that it occurred in the United States. It can not be stated at this point that this incident has any lasting historical significance (to do so would violate
WP:CRYSTAL in my view), and as such this non-fatal incident derives no lasting notability, and thereby fails
WP:GNG.
Stormy clouds (
talk)
19:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Shouldn't we Keep it per WP:AIRCRASH? This article clearly meets WP:AIRCRASH as follows : Principle 2 : Significant / lasting interest or impact (that is WP:CRYSTAL but so is everything recent on WP). Criteria A4 : Resulting in Break in the normal operation of airline and airport. 5. Suspension - Part of the airline's fleet were stopped.
AyaanLamar (
talk)
20:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
WP:AIRCRASH does not allow for article creation, as stated by
A lad insane, and as the statement of a WikiProject does not usurp fundamental Wikipedia rules like
WP:GNG and
WP:NOTNEWS. Moreover, per those self-same guidelines,
it only provides notability for aircraft which resulted in fatalities (no), hull loss or significant damage (no), or major changes to procedure for airlines (per
WP:CRYSTAL, no). Therefore, it does not state that this incident is notable in any way.
Stormy clouds (
talk)
23:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Do any of you actually read the alphabet soup you cite, or do I have to directly quote it a second time for greater effect. Let me save you the trouble "Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting." --
Jayron3202:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Jayron32:WP:AIRCRASH does not allow for article creation - both A lad insane and I explicitly mention that WP:AIRCRASH is not permissible here, despite the intention of some to apply it erroneously when it does not even bolster their point. Thanks for the reiteration.
Stormy clouds (
talk)
10:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete not notable. No one died, no one was injured and the plane landed normally. The only effect this had was to scare the crap out of a few people on the plane. That shouldn't have happened, but it's United Airlines, what less do we expect it's not bad enough. Maybe if the engine actually dismantled, but this was only the casing. Not the whole thing.
-A lad insane(Channel 2)21:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
DeleteWP:NOTNEWS,
WP:GNG and fails to meet criteria suggested in
WP:AIRCRASH (a very sensible attempt to lay down criteria for aircraft accident articles). A non-notable incident promoted by the "we must have articles on absolutely everything" brigade. This incident would, however, warrant entries in relevant lists and aircraft articles.--
Petebutt (
talk)
11:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
If the decision is to keep (which I doubt, after reading the above statements), then the article needs to be seriously re-written. Poor English used all over.
Dannythewikiman (
talk)
15:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
delete A single day news item which is unlikely to generate ongoing coverage, but at any rate, it hasn't generated on going coverage yet. We clearly lack the will to speedy these things, so there is always going to be a race to put every incident from the day's news in an article, and thus there will always be these really quite unnecessary deletion discussions if
WP:NOTNEWS were to be taken seriously. Too many people can't figure out that "I get Ghits on news articles for something that happened yesterday" isn't good enough.
Mangoe (
talk)
16:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The
relevant section in the UA article should only list notable accidents and incidents - I didn't bother to check all the links to see if any of them are redirects to list articles, but the few I did check weren't. UA (the airline and the article) is simply too big to mention every single incident, and there's no standalone article on them, so there isn't really a good merge target.
ansh66623:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Reply - There is nothing notable here to merge into the airline's history section or anywhere else. It just isn't notable. Minor damage to an aircraft, it is probably already fixed and flying again. -
Ahunt (
talk)
16:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete I can't see how the events in this article get anywhere even close to -
WP:EVENTCRITERIA which says "A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)".
Andrewgprout (
talk)
18:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete As many have stated above
WP:NOTNEWS applies here. While this type of failure is comparatively rare, the majority of the secondary sources don't provide a whole lot of info that would satisfy
WP:GNG apart from stating it happened and passengers were scared. MSM have a habit of sensationalising anything to do with air travel, and the 24 hour news cycle means there will always be a lot of coverage, especially when there is visible damage/passengers with mobile phone videos. In the absence of significant damage to the aircraft structure, such as in
Qantas Flight 32 or even
Southwest Airlines Flight 3472 it appears to have been a fairly straightforward engine failure and I could argue
WP:MILL applies here too.
Dfadden (
talk)
08:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - I don't feel like voting at the moment. However, I shall say that, at least, we have a
Wikinews article covering this subject. If the Wikipedia counterpart doesn't survive, at least we have Wikinews.
George Ho (
talk)
06:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)reply
It's hard to source "missing a fan blade" as there are any number of vague handwaves at this, without any real source.
It does seem that a blade was lost. I've seen one tweet with one photo, which may be of this incident.
[17]
Questions still remain:
Did the engine shed a blade, fail to contain it, and then strip the nacelle as a result? That is serious - an uncontained failure, and as per the A380 incidents I'd support keeping it. But it needs real sourcing.
Did the cowling (or a birdstrike) get ingested, damage a blade, and then the engine contain the bits, as it's designed to do. That's nothing like as serious.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
11:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep It is of marginal notability; succeeds primarily on moderate depth of coverage in RS. In-flight separation of a major engine part--or any important airplane part--that results in significant in-flight bumpiness is not Run of the Mill and not Routine. By definition, it was News, but that's not an automatic disqualifier. I recommend keep as a service to readers who are interested in airliner incidents, particularly one that resulted in unique and frightening in-flight images.
DonFB (
talk)
05:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not yet notable per
WP:BAND. The article is mostly sourced by music blogs and social media, and I don't see significant coverage of them online in
WP: Reliable sources. There is
this profile in an online magazine which
claims 8 million monthly visitors, but that's all I can find online. There's a lot of unsourced and poorly sourced info about them, suggesting
WP:COI, though that can be fixed. They've done well on Spotify, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're highly successful in a few years, but for now this is
WP:TOOSOON.
The Mighty Glen (
talk)
17:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Band has quite a lot of coverage across the board. If Wikipedia is going to be Time Magazine and New York Times only, we're going to have to delete a whole lot of articles. Definitely not too soon as this band has been in existence for 3 solid years and is making constant progress, as noted within the references. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Egrant1102 (
talk •
contribs)
02:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Album with no credible claim to passing
WP:NALBUMS. As always, albums are not automatically entitled to have standalone Wikipedia articles just because the band that recorded them has one, or even just because it's technically possible to
verify the track listing. To qualify for its own article separately from just having its name mentioned in the band's discography, an album has to have verified Nielsen Soundscan chart placements, Juno Award nominations, or at the very least enough
reliable source attention (e.g. reviews by professional music critics in real newspapers or music magazines) to clear
WP:GNG. But there's no evidence of any of that here -- this states nothing about the album that would constitute an actual notability claim at all, and cites no references.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment. One potential source is a couple of substantial paragraphs about the album in the book Have Not Been the Same[18], which is also cited in the main article about the band. I haven't found anything else yet. As Bearcat says, some substantial reliable-source reviews or other coverage would be helpful. --
Arxiloxos (
talk)
18:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm Simon Goodchild, the original creator of the page, and I support the need to delete it as it doesn't really add any value, and can appear as an advert. Therefore, I vote for deletion.
Simon.goodchild17:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A list of codeshare destinations is not an encyclopedic topic. The
Flybe article already identifies the codeshare partners. This article adds nothing to understanding of
Flybe.
Rhadow (
talk)
15:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete this article is
WP:NOTDIR; codeshares aren't operated by the primary airline and do nothing to help understand the core topic. Side note: this AfD has nothing to do with the DRV in my opinion.
Garretka (
talk)
20:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Also to add, the airlines themselves on the page host a small table with this information on their own articles, making this article redundant.
Garretka (
talk)
14:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This unreferenced article gives no indication that
Bulgarian Air Charter has ever flown to the destinations in the list. As a charter operator, any customer with a passenger list and a bank account can organize a trip anywhere within range of an A320.
Rhadow (
talk)
15:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm generally in favor of retaining lists of airline destinations, but since this airline does not offer regularly scheduled service, this particular list should go. Some of these flights may have only took place once. BillHPike (
talk,
contribs)
03:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: That's inexcusable and uncalled for in fact, I find the accusation that an editor created an AfD for an article and discussed, "List items do not pass
WP:GNG other than the
Big Six (ice hockey) teams". You think this list about nicknames (or lack thereof) of
national ice hockey teams failing both
WP:LISTN and
WP:GNG? The problem is some national ice hockey teams do not have any nicknames!
AaronWikia (
talk)
22:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The subject does not pass
WP:ANYBIO and
WP:GNG Majority of the listed references simply fail. References from YouTube, DAWN, The News are self-written and are not independent. Other listed references do not tell anything about the subject.
M A A Z T A L K 15:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Indeed, the inclusion criteria here are somewhere between indiscriminate and entirely nonexistent — many of the entries here are not actually television channels with worldwide distribution, but are multinational media companies which operate different channels in different countries (Sky Italia is not, frex, the same channel as Sky UK just because they're both owned by Sky plc), while others broadcast terrestrially only in one country and then use internet streaming to reach the rest of the world. And if that latter was an inclusion criteria, then in 2018 almost every television channel that exists at all would belong in this list. It's basically just pointless.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Completing nomination on behalf of an anonymous editor, who provided no rationale. The article itself has no sources, and indeed no defined topic - it's not about a specific Torcadero, or a specific use of the name. This article was forked in 2007, as a result of
Trocadero becoming a disambiguation page. The origins of the name are discussed at
Trocadero, however, which makes this non-specific article redundant. The only incoming link to this article is from that disamb page. Based on all that, I believe this can be deleted without the loss of any information.
UltraExactZZSaid~
Did14:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per nomination. It's hard to imagine that this would be the page where any reader would go for this information, as the
Trocadero page is the obvious choice. I created this page in 2007, just to unburden the dab page, and it seems superfluous now.
Christhe spelleryack14:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm the nominating IP. Wikipedia did not allowed me to continue with the process by creating this page, so I just went away. I suggest you fix the process. -
91.10.6.125 (
talk)
00:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
It has been a longstanding practice not to let anonymous editors create pages. This is meant for articles, because it is easy to create a massive number of articles very rapidly, and that could be abused. But it also extends to project pages like this one. That is why we have systems like
WP:BADAFD, which flags AFDs that haven't been completed yet. Most of those are like yours. So I and others will complete them for you, or ask for your reasoning and do it that way. I understand that it's inconvenient, but the alternative isn't really an option. Thanks for nominating this article.
UltraExactZZSaid~
Did13:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Author removed much of the opinion attributed to Gartner. They did coin the term and the definition, and are often thought of as a neutral, credible source, but the focus should be on research and development across the industry. The term is no less notable at this point than other related terms like
Software Defined Networking, or
IT network assurance and many others. Virtually every IT networking vendor in the industry has gotten behind this technology with plans to develop solutions as documented in the article.
Gkinghorn (
talk)
16:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect per the two votes above me. There's nothing in the articles showing independent notability for any of these Stagecoach routes. Better off in a list and would support a bulk AfD/redirect for the remaining articles.
SportingFlyer (
talk)
18:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - Non notable bus route, Pointless redirecting as no one is going to search "Stagecoach Gold bus route S9", Having this as a redirect just sets the precedent that the rest of the bus routes can be created as redirects..... I know REDIRECTSARECHEAP and all that but this isn't cheap ... it's just pointless. –
Davey2010Talk18:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment I am the creator of these articles, and whilst I do agree with some of the above comments, the
Stagecoach Gold article is becoming far too cluttered. With more and more routes being added to the brand, the main article will continue to look more and more untidy. I created these articles with the aim of changing the Stagecoach Gold article sections to tables containing only basic information and then having standalone articles for each route which would contain additional information such as history etc. I admit that this specific route isn't notable, but you could then argue that most of the London buses routes that have their own articles are the same. There is a lot of information in the article that would not be suitable to cascade into the Stagecoach Gold article as the article is in need of cleanup and has been since April 2016.
Commyguy (
talk)
19:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Most bus routes are non notable and this is no exception. The only references are primary sources from Stagecoach and some bus fansite.
Ajf773 (
talk)
06:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: Lacks in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and I don't see if the subject has played a significant/major role in films listed in the article.
GSS (
talk|
c|
em)
13:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete and consider Salt. These types of fanpages are becoming more of a problem on WP. They're generally people that are "known" in some sense by a fanbase (like an obscure actress in this case), but that clearly fall short of our notability guidelines (like having only 1 local news article as a source). This article was recreated once and probably will be again.
Agricola44 (
talk)
14:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy keep, clearly a notable organisation, plenty of
WP:RS both in the article and online in English and Russian. Article was nominated for deletion by a single-edit
WP:SPA on the vaguest rationale possible, and clearly
WP:BEFORE bothering to discuss on its talk page and attempting to improve it.
The Mighty Glen (
talk)
12:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article, unreferenced since it was created in 2006, purports to describe the destinations of six unidentified airlines (FAA certificate holders) that operate(d) under the American Eagle logo. Without reliable references, the article is original research.
Rhadow (
talk)
10:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. References that meet WP:N are easily found for these types of articles. The fact it's currently a poorly referenced article doesn't make it original research.
SportingFlyer (
talk)
18:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - per SportingFlyer. What the nom needs to understand is WP:N requires the existence of references, not if they're already placed in the article by the time a specific editor happens on it. --
Oakshade (
talk)
05:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - where are these references that can easily be found? Could someone demonstrate that indeed these references exist? AA.com does not seem to provide this information, as it only indicates the operating airline, but not the airline brand.
2A02:A451:8B2D:1:DC4F:C0B9:9118:72A7 (
talk)
20:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
If you google "American Eagle" and or "Envoy" and the name of the destination, several news articles invariably come up. For instance, for showing at least former service to two destinations:
[21][22]SportingFlyer (
talk)
20:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
And? How does help us source an article that is meant to comprehensively cover all of American Eagle's destinations? The article name is "American Eagle Airlines destinations" not "Some of American Eagle Airlines destinations".
2A02:A451:8B2D:1:DC4F:C0B9:9118:72A7 (
talk)
21:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
It shouldn't be difficult to understand: We need one or more reliable sources that show that the airline flies or has flown to the places in the list, and that the list is complete and comprehensive. In other words, how can we know that this article includes all American Eagle destinations?
2A02:A451:8B2D:1:DC4F:C0B9:9118:72A7 (
talk)
21:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Or in the alternative, that the airline no longer flies there ... and I won't accept an assertion that, because a particular location is no longer on the subject's website, that it had and terminated service.Rhadow (
talk)
23:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
That's fine. No one is arguing that point. The information is available elsewhere anyways and needs to be in order to pass notability, such as newspaper articles or former route maps. Some of these articles are poorly referenced, but a poorly referenced article shouldn't be deleted because it's poorly referenced: a poorly referenced article should be deleted only if there are no references available to source it. In any case, a larger AfD/DRV/policy discussion about lists of destinations is currently ongoing, you know this, and picking one particular article to try the "original research" AfD debate on at this moment isn't helpful in the least, especially since reliable published sources exist, whether they be articles talking about the closing of a route or old maps or diagrams.
SportingFlyer (
talk)
00:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
No, it is not fine. You claim that references are easily found, but fail to find any. This is also unrelated to the ongoing discussion on airline destination articles. This is a special situation we have here - an airline brand, not an operating airline. With List of Lufthansa/KLM/Emirates airlines there is no question about references, we just use the airline webpage/schedules. There is no such webpage or schedule for American Eagle, so you have to demonstrate that these references exist somewhere else. Please show us these "easily found references". I would be happy to change to keep if evidence is shown that this article can be properly sourced, now or at some undetermined point in the future.
2A02:A451:8B2D:1:6C89:7DBA:DD79:C2A1 (
talk)
08:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Hello
2A02:A451:8B2D:1:6C89:7DBA:DD79:C2A1 -- Thie issue is more fundamental than Eagle's peculiar circumstance.
SportingFlyer is arguing for a different standard to be applied to 2006 vintage articles than to one created today.
American Eagle destinations has a grandfathered claim to notability because of the possibility that references may be found. The same article today would fail review and never make it to the mainspace. The same is true for photography definitions, train stations, and a host of special interest articles. PROD any of them or take them to AfD. Gallons of virtual ink will be spilled in their defense with, typically, no improvement. Since this particular discussion started, Portland, ME and Lansing, MI have references. Pointe a Pitre has fallen into doubt.
Rhadow (
talk)
Please don't put words in my mouth. I am not saying anything other than this article should not be deleted, since numerous sources exist showing the article is notable. I added those two references in about three minutes, by the way. I'm not going to waste my time referencing an article in an AfD discussion. Finally, Pointe a Pitre is not in doubt - the airline flies or has flown there.
SportingFlyer (
talk)
17:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Republic Airline served
Fort-de-France in January 2018. It is not on the February 2018 map. If the standard for the Destination List series is to be serves or served without differentiation, fine. But that's not the way they are formatted. If it takes three minutes to update two destinations, then it will take two and a half hours a month to keep this one article up to date.
Rhadow (
talk)
18:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
It'n not a matter of disliking it. It is a matter of suggesting that it is a waste of time to maintain an article for which the bar has been set unreasonably high. Tell me please which airports American Eagle serves: Dulles or Reagan National ... or Bush Intercontinental or Hobby? These monthly changes of destination are not notable. No newspaper bothers to write that
Fort-de-France was dropped from the schedule. It's simply not notable. It is travel trivia not suitable for an encyclopedia.
Rhadow (
talk)
19:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete- putting aside the question of whether this can be referenced, this still falls under
WP:NOTTRAVEL and
WP:NOTDIR. The article also would have to be updated constantly to maintain accuracy. Just because something can be referenced doesn't mean its worthy of being included.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
19:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
1. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. If someone is planning a trip they can look on the airline's website to see where they travel, it is not of enecylopedic value. 2.
WP:NOTDIR is probably the stronger of the two arguements: "Sales catalogues. An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time." (emphasis mine) Yes, airline service is a product, being that almost all the destinations cannot be sourced in independent sources, it is not notable.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
21:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
For
WP:NOTTRAVEL, I don't understand how it applies. These lists show where an airline operates, not how the cities themselves are connected so they serve virtually no purpose in that regard. For "sales catalogue" there is no pricing attached. There certainly are independent, non review, sources out there for the majority of these routes, and that's something that can be worked on. To echo Jetstreamer below, deletion is not cleanup.
Garretka (
talk)
22:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
″Availability″ applies to hotel accomodation, aircraft seats, etc. I don't see airline destination articles including such information, which certainly belongs in Wikivoyage. Neither I see the prices of hotel rooms in hotel articles. Regarding ″prices and productd availabiliy″, they are offered at the corresponding websites, and these websites are included as a field both in airline and hotel infoboxes. Your interpretation of both
WP:NOTRAVEL and
WP:NOTDIR eventually goes against the entire project. --JetstreamerTalk22:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
In the airline industry, availability means seats you can purchase, not the destinations you can reach. It seems to me
WP:NOTDIR and
WP:NOTRAVEL is subject to different interpretations. And following your example, there should't be articles about mayonnaise or beverages just because they can be purchased at supermarkets.--JetstreamerTalk15:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Speedy CloseKeep on this one. While I agree with the Flybe AfD, I would wait until the DRV concludes as this is "essentially the same issue in a different forum" (from
WP:FORUMSHOPPING). Best to wait until conclusion of the DRV. No need to rush into this.
Garretka (
talk)
20:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment This article is not part of the DRV,
WP:FORUMSHOPPING is not a valid point. Besides, the same people arguing that this is forum shopping are the same people insisting that each article must go to AfD before deleting (you can't have it both ways).--
Rusf10 (
talk)
21:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Quote from
WP:FORUMSHOPPING: "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators, or any of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus." The DRV is about whether consensus has been achieved on this broad topic. Once that is decided, then a path forward can be developed. My preference is to AfD individual articles based on notability, but that's a discussion for after the DRV.
Garretka (
talk)
22:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
If one or the articles under deletion review was AfDed again, you would have a point, but this is a different article. Like I said before, you want it both ways. Your preference is to AfD each article, but you don't want that done until a DRV involving different articles is completed.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
23:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The DRV is the first of what could be many batch deletions per the initial VPP discussion and the ANI discussion. This article would get nominated sooner or later. Yes it's a different article, but this is "essentially the same issue". And yes that is correct. Because the current batch deletion has many quality lists contained within it. That DRV will likely end in a deletion or no consensus. Nominating more articles with "essentially the same issue" while there is an ongoing discussion that will have broader implications is again, unhelpful and will not help establish a consensus. Arguments made for and against deletion here will be the exact same as what is going on there. You can argue till the cows come home but this AfD is textbook Forum Shopping because it's essentially the same issue.
Garretka (
talk)
04:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Again, AfD is admittedly your preferred forum for this. You're saying this is forum shopping, but at the same time saying that it actually belongs in this forum. However, what you are actually arguing for is a delay, which makes no sense. The outcome of the DRV doesn't automatically keep or delete this article.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
04:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
You've requested this article be deleted per WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTDIR. Not only does the nominator ask it be AfD'd on original research grounds, the DRV addresses whether these articles violate both of these.
SportingFlyer (
talk)
07:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
It is extremely unhelpful in establishing consensus on all 444 of these pages when there is a discussion that may not involve this page in particular, but involves the subject and will establish a consensus on these pages moving forward. The outcome of the DRV will clear up where the community stands on these articles and again, will create a path forward for the remainder of these articles.
Garretka (
talk)
09:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
It's basic reasoning: If the outcome of the DRV is to endorse the AfD close this paves the way for all airline destination articles to be deleted. On the contrary, if the outcome is to overturn the decision, why all these articles wouldn't be kept?--JetstreamerTalk15:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
So if the outcome of the DRV is endorse, the three of you would allow this article to be automatically deleted? I doubt it. Likewise, if the outcome is overturn, you cannot argue that this page needs to be kept simply because the other ones were. The outcome of the DRV doesn't determine what happens here.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
16:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
If the DRV is endorse it will make it easier to batch AfD articles, (I would still argue based on the notability of the subject at hand, either for or against). If the DRV overturns then it will result in further discussion as to the true meaning of
WP:NOTDIR and
WP:NOTTRAVEL. Both are subject to wide interpretations. This AfD is premature.
Garretka (
talk)
17:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Coment -- The matter at issue in the DRV was whether destination article should exist at all. The matter at issue here is whether an article should remain when five of its purported six subjects are unreferenced, and therefore are not verified. The DRV is not approval of badly referenced articles. No snow here.
Rhadow (
talk)
23:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)reply
There is absolutely no snow here. In fact, to suggest that there is, is unconscionable, there are three keeps and three deletes right now. Like I said before, the result of the DRV involving other articles does not impact the result here.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
23:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Your main arguments at the DRV discussion were
WP:NOTDIR and
WP:NOTRAVEL. These two arguments were used for the original discussion at VP. It should be more than clear that these arguments are now void in view of the outcome of the DRV.--JetstreamerTalk02:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
DRV doesn't determine policy, its simply a place to review if a discussion was closed with the correct procedure. I don't know how you read the DRV outcome and came to the conclusion that
WP:NOTDIR and
WP:NOTRAVEL cannot apply to this particular article.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
03:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Did you read the DRV close? "The primary issue here was that the close basically said, Policy was already established at
a Village Pump / Policy discussion, and that trumps the consensus of the people discussing the issue here at AfD. That concept was soundly rejected in this review."
Keep Just in case it wasn't clear from my earlier comment, this is flagrant fotum shopping. Consensus is that these articles are notable. The DRV made that abundantly clear. It also made it clear that the reasoning stated in nomination does not apply to this kind of article, nor does the VPP discussion override conensus. Finally, AFD is not cleanup. Enough already.
Smartyllama (
talk)
13:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. I think the consensus of earlier discussions especially the DRV is clear that these articles are justified, and this one is as much justified as the others. I'm not going to repeat the arguments, but essentially this is appropriate content for an encyclopedia such as WP. The DRV close is the current general consensus. This was not at least initially my own personal view on what we ought to be doing, but my opinion is now different: arguments in the prior discussions have convinced me. But whether or not they would have convinced me, I respect the general idea that we to some extent should defer to those who want to include certain general classes of content, in the understanding they will treat our own similarly. The principle of a joint project is to tolerate each other. DGG (
talk )
06:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - That the article should exist is not in question. It still needs references for Compass and Mesa. That the concept of the article was approved by DRV does not excuse it from
WP:V.
Rhadow (
talk)
11:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep the company has received significant coverage in third party sources and it meets
WP:NORG. Content was likely written by an undisclosed COI editor and needs to be toned down to maintain a neutral tone however.
Cait.123 (
talk)
17:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Could you please provide some instances where the coverage is not sourced to the company itself (like interviews or viewpoints form Company officials). A
WP:BEFORE could not find anything. --Hagennos❯❯❯Talk05:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to
Gordon Food Service. There are some arguments for a merge, but it doesn't sound like there's actually anything to merge, so that sounds like a redirect to me. The history will still be there, so if anybody wants to salvage anything to merge, go for it. --
RoySmith(talk)02:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)reply
This prose is close to unreadable. In normal cases, could argue that the prose is worth fixing as the subject is worth keeping, but this article makes no useful distinction between GFS Canada and Gordon Food Service--and neither does GFS, if its website is any guide. So existing Gordon Food Service article should suffice.
Doprendek (
talk)
01:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Subject does not appear to meet either
WP:BASIC or
WP:PORNBIO criteria; no in-depth coverage found, only a brief appearance in the news for being a witness at a murder trial, along with the resulting sensationalistic "true crime" coverage. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk)
09:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
That point was raised before, and the consensus (which I'm not fond of, and didn't support) was that the source accurately repeated the information given in the magazine itself. If I remember right, somebody even spot-checked it. It's like IMDB -- generally not acceptable as a source, but accepted for noncontroversial replication of information published elsewhere, like standard cast lists, but hard to find stable online citations for. (It also prevented people from linking to copyvio pages hosting centerfold and "Playmate Data Sheet" pages). If you want to change the cites to the actual magazine pages, be my guest -- I have better things to do.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (
talk)
14:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
fails
WP:NMUSIC and
WP:GNG. None of the sources support notability. 1 is a user generated content social media site, 2 is a whats on post that just mentions that he palyed a set in a bar in Atlanta, 3 is user generated content, 4 is an ad for an event 5 is also an ad for an event, 6 is his linkedin page, and 7 ...I don't know how to describe this poorly written source but it most definately doesn't look reliable
Dom from Paris (
talk)
17:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article does not clearly establish notability -- minor baseball prospect who has not been active in the sport for close to two years. Sourcing is weak and article is largely a compendium of trivia. Article has been proposed for merger into
Washington Nationals minor league players for more than six months without action; it is a poor fit for said article because of the subject's inactivity and uncertain contract status.
Kudzu1 (
talk)
08:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete I agree with the above. Merge discussions rarely go anywhere, I probably should've merged it myself instead of tagging it. There's no benefit to the project in keeping this. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
18:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep, he satisfies the requirement of
WP:MUSICBIO, section 10 "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.". He composed the Ellen Degeneres show, which is verified on the IMDB page
Cait.123 (
talk)
18:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak keep - this source [
[26]] affirms the Ellen score info, and that he composed the closing credits theme for the Tom Cruise film
Valkyrie. Some other minor coverage here [
[27]]. It turns out that he also helped with the theme for the current Will and Grace reboot [
[28]], with his musical writing partner, who is cast member Sean Haye's husband. [
[29]] He also released an album and performs with the Kaleidoscope Chamber Orchestra. [
[30]] I think there's just enough there.
TimTempleton(talk)(cont)04:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The nominator said this was created by a
WP:SPA, but if you look at the editor's history you'll see over 1,000 subsequent edits. This article was created almost 10 years ago. Something's not right.
TimTempleton(talk)(cont)04:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails GNG and
WP:NSOLDIER. Also possible WP:HOAXunintentional creation of a composite person consisting of two (edit - or more) unrelated people.
Subject has a one paragraph mention in one book, simply noting his promotion. He has a relatively incidental mention in a second book. A third book contains, literally, one sentence (and this may not even be about the same Murray Hoag). A BEFORE fails to find sufficient additional references to sustain this as a standalone article. In "further reading" there are several paper letters mentioned which, I guess, the article's author must have in his/her possession, however, emails, message board comments, and postal letters don't generally held establish notability or meet
WP:RS standards. We don't even have his first name or DOB.
It also invokes a reference
[31] to a completely different person named Hoag that doesn't mention the subject of this article at all. (I'm also not entirely convinced the man in Iowa who raises Shetland ponies isn't even a third different person, possibly a son.) Ergo, this may also qualify for deletion under
WP:HOAX as a composite character of several different people and not a single biological person.
Chetsford (
talk)
00:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Discussion of identity of individual
Question Are you discounting the entire Georgia Historical Quarterly article? That's not multiple RSs in and of itself, but it looks like a very good start. Clearly NOT a hoax - I suggest retracting that part of the nomination. LadyofShalott01:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I am. After reading the article it's about Hettie Sabattie, a teacher at an African-American school, and analyzes her through the context of Hoag's letters as that was the side of the correspondence preserved. There are three short sentences of biographical information on Hoag in the 15 page article and the article is really about Sabattie. Hettie Sabattie would certainly pass GNG, but Hoag - unfortunately - does not.
"Clearly NOT a hoax - I suggest retracting that part of the nomination." None of the sources connect the Murray Hoag who raised ponies in Iowa in the 1890s with the Murray Hoag who fought in the American Civil War. If we can find one source that bridged the gap that would resolve my concerns about this being a composite character, however, we don't currently seem to have that. (To clarify, I'm not saying this is an intentional hoax, however.)
Chetsford (
talk)
01:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I would not be surprised that those are different people. To me hoax implies malice. Though you say that is not what you mean, I would use an entirely different term for an error than deliberate mistruth. LadyofShalott01:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Update - I've now confirmed these are two different Hoags. Per the U.S. National Park Service soldiers and sailors search
[32], a J. Murray Hoag (the pony breeder; b. 1843, d. 1917) served in the 9th Regiment, New York Heavy Artillery during the Civil War. A different J. Murray Hoag (the subject of this article) served in the 4th Regiment, United States Colored Infantry during the Civil War. So, as it currently stands, this biography is a composite of two entirely different people. I'm certain the Quaker connection is yet a third person in this composite character, however, I can't confirm that with 100% veracity yet through RS; will update as soon as I have.
Chetsford (
talk)
01:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Based on your findings about the two different men, I have gone ahead and removed the part about the pony breeder from the article. LadyofShalott02:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Yeah, a Quaker serving as an infantry officer in the Civil War would probably - by itself - pass GNG. I'm not sure we have any examples of that happening. Actually, not to add to the confusion, but it appears there may be a fourth person composited into this article. It appears there two were J. Murray Hoags at the Freedman's Bureau; I'm just working to verify that point with RS as well, and will update again, shortly. (Though it looks like the composite character is being introduced into new articles
[33], so I may have my thumb in the proverbial dyke on this one.)
Chetsford (
talk)
02:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Looks like one person to me. Served in the New York artillery and then captained 4th colored. Is such a tranfer not possible? If there were two J.M. Hoag's one may habe died in 1864 and been buried at Andersonville.
Why can't the J. Murray Hoag who survived the war have served in various roles in the Freedmen's Bureau and then retired to photography and / or pony raising in the Midwest with his family? Regardless, the officer role commanding colored troops and then leading Freedmen Bureau activities in Savannah area and perhaps elsewhere are certainly notable. Saving Savannah has pages and pages indexed to this dude. Plus all the historical letters and other coverage.
FloridaArmy (
talk)
03:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
First, the fact that you, as the article's author, are having to ask these questions - that this "dude" [sic] has so little notability we're not even sure of these basic biographical details - probably demonstrates this is an appropriate article for deletion. Second, aside from the fact that transferring from a New York artillery regiment to a Maryland infantry regiment (the 4th Colored Infantry) would have been highly unusual, there's also the fact the Maryland militia roster shows him serving in it 1863-1867
[34], the same time period the other Hoag was serving in New York. Third, as previously noted, he was not a Quaker minister. (In general, Quaker ministers didn't serve as combat infantry officers during the Civil War but - more specifically - this one specifically didn't as demonstrated by the source.) As previously explained, this is not an article on a real person, it is a composite character of between two to four different people who share the very common surname "Hoag". WP biographies, as a general rule, need to be about real people.
Chetsford (
talk)
04:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
It's not surprising at all. It's a Quaker family so while anti-slavery and Republican sentiments ran strong, military service was somewhat controversial, especially for a family of Quaker ministers. But you seem very confused. This individual was never as far as I can tell a minister. But if you want a connection between the small town in Iowa and his war service
here you go.
Joseph Hoag's grandson and Lindley Murray Hoag's son. For some reason he was buried as Joseph Lindley Hoag instead of Joseph Murray Hoag, I'm not sure why. Perhaps to honor his father? Did you know his father's brother, Murray Hoag, died very young? Yes, It's all a bit confusing because of the Quaker prophet names running in the family. But all it took was a bit of time to sort it all out. It's the same dude. I'm sure your apology will be forthcoming. And as far as the links you've put up I can't find anything at all relevant in them. In contrast I've established exactly who this guy was an who his family were. The notice of his mustering out is online as his appointment to Freedmen's bureau on the front page of a contemporary newspaper account. Clearly notable.
FloridaArmy (
talk)
05:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Huh? What does that prove? The J. Murray Hoag of New York, later of Iowa, belonged to the
Grand Army of the Republic. I'm sure he did, since he was a veteran. I'm sure the other Murray Hoag - the subject of this article from Maryland - did as well. I'm sorry you're upset but I don't really know how better to explain this to you: this article is a composite character of two to four different people.
Chetsford (
talk)
05:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete as per Chetsford, seems like a composite of multiple people, serving both in New York and Maryland doesn't make any sense. This is a mess, without even dealing with the question of notability, the article cannot be kept. In order to have an article, we need sources that make it clear who the person was and where they lived.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
05:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
CommentHere's the officer Hoag mustered out with. He served in an Ohio unit and then was an officer for the 128th colored troop organized in South Carolina. So obvioualy colored troop officers coild be drawn from areas that weren't where the colored troops, freedmen, were from (including areas in the South). Despite Chetsford claims he hasn't shown any evidence there are different people in this article. What are the birth and death dates of these supposed people? Other info loke graves or parents?
FloridaArmy (
talk)
06:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The link you provided doesn't mention the name "Hoag" anywhere in it. What you are doing is analyzing historical texts to find connections that would support a conclusion, which is fine if you're writing a book but on WP is
WP:OR.
Chetsford (
talk)
06:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
No, you said a soldier serving from one state and then being an officer of colored troops from another didn't make any sense. I was showing you're wrong. There is no OR involved. Lots of sources covering his military service and family history. As well as his later career as a druggist and pony breeder in Iowa. Sources on his father and grandfather as well discussing Lindley's move to Iowa. It's all solod stuff. Still waiting for yoi to give dates or family histories for the multiple J. Murray Hoags you claim exist. Nothing but B.S.
FloridaArmy (
talk)
06:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
"It's all solod stuff. Still waiting for yoi to give dates or family histories for the multiple J. Murray Hoags you claim exist. Nothing but B.S." OK, noted.
Chetsford (
talk)
06:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
KeepComment Yuck. I've tried to clean up the article. The connecting tissue comes from his GAR record ("Iowa, Grand Army of the Republic Membership Records, 1861-1949," database with images, FamilySearch (
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q23N-SCTS : 2 June 2016), J Murray Hoag, 1861-1949; citing Iowa, United States, Military Service, State Historical Department, Des Moines; FHL microfilm 1,487,403.). There are two obits in the current article, which do a bit of the work, as well. There is also a picture. A bag of Trouts to FloridaArmy, you can't just make things up and add random stuff and expect editors to understand and clean up your mess. Yes, I agree this individual is suitable for the encyclopedia, but it is important make sure your work is verifiable and as correct as possible - mistakes are ok but not guessing.
Smmurphy(
Talk)07:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
If he was, I don't see it as a notable part of his life. I removed that stuff from the article, it didn't seem clear that it belonged. This article is clearly meant to be about a J. Murray Hoag who was a member of the Freedmen's Bureau. The only such person was John Murray Hoag (1843-1917). Alternative forms of his name include John M. Hoag and J. Murrah Hoag. Lindley Murray Hoag (1808-1880) may be a relative, but I don't see how. Ancestry.com family trees suggest John was the son of Hiram Cook Hoag and Sally Ann Wyman and that Hiram was the son of a Benjamin Jr, none of whom match the Quaker Joseph Hoag (1762-1846) linked to in an earlier version of this page.
Smmurphy(
Talk)07:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
According to your newest source, he was 19 in 1863, making his DOB 1847. You've previously claimed he went by the alias Lindley Hoag and was from a family of famous Quakers
[36]. In that version you cited a source
[37] showing a DOB of 1808. Can you clarify?
Chetsford (
talk)
07:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
19 years old comes, I think, from his enlistment record. That same civilwardata page does give a DOB of 1843, though, matching his tombstone and GAR records.
Smmurphy(
Talk)07:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
OK. So was he born in 1843, 1837, or 1808? Was his name J. Murray or J. Lindley? Are we using RS or are we using Findagrave and ancestry.com?
Chetsford (
talk)
07:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
No one wants to use ancestry.com. The question was if John (1843-1917) was related to any Quakers. I don't know where FloridaArmy got that from, but it isn't in any sources I see on the current or any past versions of the page. Thus, I checked ancestry to see if there was anything that might be in family history or something from which such a connection could be made. I didn't find it there either. I don't know why FloridaArmy made that connection.
Smmurphy(
Talk)07:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't know who Joseph Lindley Hoag (1834-1900) is. Iowa Falls, where he is buried, is a long way from Maquoketa, Los Angeles, or Arlington, though. Also, the civilwardata information includes birth and death dates which match those currently in the article and which are not 1834 and 1900 respectively.
Smmurphy(
Talk)07:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Another person named Hoag. It's a fairly common name which may be the source of your frustration when you created the composite article that merged the Quaker minister Hoag and the Civil War officer Hoag. That's one reason we try to discourage OR. Otherwise our article on
John Jones might claim he was a championship water polo player, instead of
John Jones.
Chetsford (
talk)
07:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
So is this an article about Joseph Lindley Hoag, born 1834 in New Hampshire; Joseph Lindley Murray born 1808 to a Quaker family; or J. Murray Hoag born 1843 who served in the Army in Maryland? We've gone through a few different versions so I just want to make sure I know which we're currently on.
Chetsford (
talk)
07:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Hmmm. But he just - above - left a cryptic note about "Joseph Lindley Hoag" born in 1837 in New Hampshire. I think that may have to do with what he previously included in the article that Hoag was from a family of famous Quakers and used the alias Lindley and was born in 1808 (which would mean he was a championship breeder of Shetland Ponies as a 111 year old man in Iowa). Also, we should probably avoid using Find-A-Grave to source articles as per
Rusf10's comment.
Chetsford (
talk)
07:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I first found Hoag's grave using the find a grave thing-y at the arlington national cemetery website, but that doesn't create a url, so to provide a link I looked for it on find-a-grave. We do, in some instances, consider a grave stone to be a useful primary source. I don't care for the practice but if we really wanted, we could use it here to provide a name for his wife (Caroline).
Smmurphy(
Talk)07:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Per the article, John (1843-1917) married a Belden (happens to be sister of Scott Belden, for whom
Belden, Nebraska is named). John's (1843-1917) tomb also has the name of Caroline Belden Hoag. Caroline is the wife of the John who is the sunject of this article, John (1843-1917).
Smmurphy(
Talk)08:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I think some of this comment repeats my earlier comment, but: John (1843-1917) is buried at Arlington National Cemetery according to his obituary and his GAR record (both linked in the article). You can find an image of his grave on the Arlington National Cemetery website, there is only one John Hoag who died in 1917 when you search for it. The image is the same as the image at findagrave. Looking at the image (the grave is a primary source, if we believe the image is accurate, we can consider it a primary source), John (1843-1917) was buried with a person named Caroline Belden Hoag (1838-1927). The article currently says that John (1843-1917) married a sister to Scott Belden, citing a newspaper article. From this, I conclude that John (1843-1917) was married to a woman named Caroline. I don't think this belongs in the article as while I believe my logic is sound, I don't think it is interesting enough that we should IAR NOR just to add her first name to the article.
Smmurphy(
Talk)08:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't know how the breeder and colored unit commander could be the same person. According to Chetsford " I've now confirmed these are two different Hoags. Per the U.S. National Park Service soldiers and sailors search [2], a J. Murray Hoag (the pony breeder; b. 1843, d. 1917) served in the 9th Regiment, New York Heavy Artillery during the Civil War. A different J. Murray Hoag (the subject of this article) served in the 4th Regiment, United States Colored Infantry during the Civil War. So, as it currently stands, this biography is a composite of two entirely different people." He seemed so sure of himself!!!
FloridaArmy (
talk)
08:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
@
FloridaArmy: I think you have no right to be smug here. Probably none of us do, but you created the mess. Just because I tried to clean it up doesn't mean that Chetsford wasn't trying to clean it up as well. I think you should apologize and strike your comment.
Smmurphy(
Talk)08:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
So it appears I was correct, it was a composite article of J. Murray Hoag (born 1843) and the Quaker John Lindley Hoag (born 1808)
[38]. Now that's settled and Smmurphy has de-composited it by removing the references to separate person J.L. Hoag, we should move forward with a discussion about its suitability under
WP:NSOLDIER. I'm not seeing he meets any of the eight criteria, and the sources contain such incidental mentions that they don't pass GNG.
Chetsford (
talk)
08:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Smmurphy is clearly the hero here, but I am troubled that Chetsford keeps putting out misleading information. Joseph Lindley Hoag (born 1834 and died 1900 OR 1902 depending on source) and John Murray Hoag (born 1843 died 1917) are the people we are differentiating. The sources on the Captain of the colored unit and Freedmen Bureau are abundant. Saving Savannah index shows the book is full of coverage.
FloridaArmy (
talk)
08:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Sorry? You are the one who created a semi-fictional, composite biography by blending in the life history of an entirely different person to create an article that contained bits and pieces of two different people
[39] and - when challenged - then claimed this individual must have been buried under an alias
[40]. But yes,
Smmurphy is owed thanks for undoing that. If you'd like, you can even thank me for also undoing that when you attempted it again
at this other article[41].
Chetsford (
talk)
08:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I think this is hard for other editors to read and am going to format this a bit; add a discussion about identity of individual sub-section head and then a discussion about suitability for encyclopedia subsection head so that this is all easier to read. I'm striking my earlier vote into a !comment and writing a new !vote in the new subsection (still keep but with clearer rational) @
Rusf10: if you think this would be a good idea, could you move you !vote to the new subsection? @
Chetsford: if you think this would be a good idea, feel free to restate your nomination based on the current article either at the very top or the top of the new discussion of suitability of subject in encyclopedia section. If doing so is obviously wrong to someone, feel free to remove my formatting.
Smmurphy(
Talk)15:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment why are people getting worked up about editor errors on an article about a 19th C person? The subject is so old that it errors could be coming from a hundred directions.
104.163.148.25 (
talk)
06:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
It's one thing if errors are introduced by relying on sources presumed to be reliable. It's another thing if they are introduced by sloppy original research. --
Lambiam19:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Discussion of suitability of subject in encyclopedia
Keep - Hoag's role in the civil war received a mention for gallantry, which is provided in numerous listings of such mentions, including Williams 2012. During the war, there were few medals for gallantry other than the Medal of Honor (I don't think he would qualify for the
Butler Medal, for instance). His role in the Freedmen's Bureau in Georgia is given mention, generally passing, in numerous books, including Cimbala 1997, Jones 2009, and Harris and Berry 2014. He is a central character in Cimbala 1997, with mentions on 8 pages in the text and 10 more in the notes. His relationship with black teachers is analysed in Whittington 1991. After leaving the bureau, he moved to Iowa where he became one of the most prominent Shetland pony breeders in the country, operating what was for a time the largest Shetland pony ranch in the country and being president of the main US Shetland pony association. Most of the 308 newspapers.com results for a search for '"J M Hoag" OR "J Murray Hoag"' during his lifetime are really about him and most of those are about his farm career (
https://www.newspapers.com/search/#query=%22j+m+hoag%22+OR+%22j+murray+hoag%22&dr_year=1860-1917). Between the Spanish-American War and World War I, he was an army recruiter in Buffalo, which resulted in his promotion to major and in numerous other mentions in newspapers. When he died, he had obituaries in minor Iowa and New York newspapers that I can find. His GAR record provides a clear thread so that connecting these different phases of his life is not
OR. The article has a variety of sources, so I think it passes
WP:V, and is neutrally written, passing
WP:NPOV. I would suggest that Whittington 1991 and Cimbala 1997 go a long ways towards GNG, with his obituaries contributing to that case as well. His work in Shetland pony breeding in America has a weak claim to ANYBIO#2. He doesn't quite meat SOLDIER, but almost meets #1 and #2 as being mentioned for gallantry was the second highest way of being honored for valor at the time and holding the rank of Major is a significant degree of promotion for someone who enlisted as a private.
Smmurphy(
Talk)15:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - There is sufficient information above and in the article and citations here to convince me that this soldier, politician in the
Freedmen's Bureau, and important pony breeder should be kept in Wikipedia.--
Dthomsen8 (
talk)
21:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Now that the identity of Hoag has been sorted out, the sources demonstrate notabilty per
WP:BASIC particularly with regard to his work at the Freedmen's Bureau. Nice improvements.
24.151.116.12 (
talk)
18:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The only significant sources I could find about this software project was from Hackaday, the rest are mostly forum posts or website profiles. In addition, the article has a promotional tone.
Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew12:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I'd like to provie arguments against Deletion of this article:
It is written by the inventor, but this only contributes to the facts!
HACKADAY is a reliable source, but additionally the project won 3 semifinals! This obviously asserts the notabiliity!
Additionally, this is the FIRST Arduino based, Free and Stand-Alone Telescope controller! No other in the world.
Promotional tone... I'm not sure I understand. It is a free Software and Hardware!
Do you consider that the 3rd party development "pre-built" version does not need to be included ?
The promotional tone, and how-to aspects of the article can be easily edited off, so they are not reasons for deletion. However I can confirm that it only seems to be covered by blogs, social networking sites, and hackaday. I think the topic shoul wait for an appearance in an Astronomy magazine, or a description in a journal.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
22:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I understand! As this is Open Source project, it is not funded and as such is hard to receive a review in Astronomy magazines. However there is one Astronomy magazine - "Sky & Telescope" who agree to post an article on their website, which should happen in the next few weeks (we have completed the article editing and now waiting for the publishing).
Should I go back and create this Wikipedia page after it is published ?
I'm affraid that this project will not gain publicity very fast, but step-by-step we got to 300+ followers and gaining some media attention.
Article you wrote about your product is not "independent reliable source" for Wikipedia". You need third party coverage (eg. review in such magazine by staff member), not paid adverts.
Pavlor (
talk)
09:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I have updated the "pre-built"version and hope it does not sound promotional. In addition I hope to have an article on "Sky&Telescope" magazine's website next week, as it was initially scheduled. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DEsko 76 (
talk •
contribs)
08:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)reply
delete This appears to be pure
WP:PROMO. Wikipedia is not the place to promote products. This has not received any meaningful coverage. Without
WP:RS citations, this simply does not belong. Please note that the single reference you just added does not qualify - it is a blog, and thus not a reliable source.
Tarl N. (
discuss)
16:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Additionally If you try searchig for "Free Telescope Controller", rDUINOScope is the 3rd, 4th result. It has a Website and Facebook page... It is NOT a
WP:PROMO! I don't need to promote this project as there is no financial benefit, not this is a product at all! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DEsko 76 (
talk •
contribs)
16:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can anyone assess whether the
new source passes the article over the bar?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ansh66607:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Sky and Telescope is a reliable source in general, but the article
rDUINOScope Boiana: DIY Go To Unit was written by the creator of rDUINOScope Boiana, so this is not an independent third party source. I don't see any independent reliable sources for this device. I'm not convinced that Hackaday is a reliable source. Without independent reliable sources according to
WP:RS and
WP:GNG, the article fails notability guidelines. Perhaps if and when the device garners in-depth coverage in multiple independent reviews, this could be revisited. It's a cool project. But right now, there just aren't the independent RS to support an article. Hence delete. --
Mark viking (
talk)
19:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete All sources point back to the Law Society, including the fact that they gave him an honorary LLD degree for his work. All in all, no sources demonstrate any kind of notability outside of LSUC.
104.163.148.25 (
talk)
08:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Lawyers, even if they hold an executive position with their jurisdictionally-relevant law society, are not handed an automatic inclusion freebie just because their existence can technically be verified in
primary sources like the websites of their own law firm and the law society itself — like anybody else, they still need to be
reliably sourceable as the subject of media coverage in unaffiliated sources, but there's none of that here.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep all, unless rationale can be provided why Indian cities are less worthy of a category than the other 37 similar lists in the
Category:Lists of songs about a city. FWIW, I'd much rather see a referenced list than a category based on the mention of a city's name, let's be honest, this kind of list is hardly encyclopedic... --
Richhoncho (
talk)
10:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep all I dont understand how such broad rational can be used for what seems like all the cities in South Asia or at least only cities in South Asia. The similar list for
Atlanta has no source and
List of songs about Amsterdam has one source. Yet I didn't see any of them being nominated for deletion in the past. The absence of articles on some songs does not necessarily mean that they are not notable but simply articles have not yet been created and we do know that there is a disparity in Wikipedia. Only nominating lists of cities in South Asia only furthers systemic bias.
Vinegarymass911 (
talk)
16:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep all, the nominator is being discriminiator or somehow biased on keeping articles about
Indian cities, as some editors suggested. There are similar lists about american or australian cities as well. Then why isn't he nominating all those as well here? And, If these have no encyclopedic value I suspect there is no article. At least delete all the other articles appearing in
Lists of songs, if you are neutral.
Makhamakhi (
talk)
19:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I haven't checked as to whether the songs on those other cities are notable, but if found not to be, in time I'll surely nominate those as well. There's no encyclopedic value in such poorly referenced articles which don't suffice notability.
MT TrainDiscuss16:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:LISTN: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational ... purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability". IMO, lists of songs about places serve that purpose. The lists may need pruning so that they only include songs specifically about each city, and the sourcing could be improved, but neither is a reason for deletion.
comment The ten lists under discussion were all created recently and by a single editor,
Makhamakhi, who exhibited a staggering lack of understanding of
WP:N,
WP:V, and
WP:RS (see
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Articles Created by blocked user Makhamakhi for a discussion of whether to nuke the nearly 500 articles they created in the past six weeks). The cities for which they created song lists happen to all be in South Asia. I take the nominator's word that the nominations are based on the lists failing to meeting policies and guidelines rather than on any imagined bias against South Asia, and ask other participants to
WP:AGF in that regard. --
Worldbruce (
talk)
19:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete all--Per nominator.LISTCRUFT by a near-incompetent user.And, I will be genuinely interested if the keep !voters can churn out something other than OSE and misplaced claims of geo-bias.
~ Winged BladesGodric12:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep all. I looked at one of these,
List of songs about Lucknow, in detail. It looks like it meets
WP:LISTN to me. LISTN says, it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Well, we've got a source, 10 Bollywood Songs That Has Captured Lucknow And Its Charm. That sure seems like it meets the LISTN requirement. I only looked at the others more briefly, but at first glance, they seem like they meet LISTN as well. Bundling all of these into a single AfD doesn't help, because perhaps some are notable and some are not. I would suggest keeping them all for now and allowing (
WP:NPASR) people to bring back specific ones that they really feel fail LISTN. That fact that the creator of this lists has subsequently been banned is immaterial. --
RoySmith(talk)00:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)reply
That means that both
List of songs about Delhi and
List of songs about Lucknow have independent sources which relate to those two lists as lists per se. The proposed multiple deletion is therefore unjustified. These lists need to be discussed individually.
Keep all . I think the general view at WP has become that we will keep lists suh as this , regardless of our own personal interests. My own general view is that lists for minor content is a good way of discouraging articles on such content, and is a reasonable compromise in such matters. Compromise is, after all, the only way we can work together. I apply it equally to the fields in which I am interested in, and to the ones in which I have no interest whatsoever. This is not my private WP. DGG (
talk )
06:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep any songs that are notable (i.e. have articles), delete all others. If there are no notable songs left, delete the list. This seems easier than the discussion is making it.
TimTempleton(talk)(cont)18:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Also easy to resolve. If the group of items being listed itself is not notable, the
WP:LISTN threshold is not met. In other words, unless there is media coverage that substantiates that songs about a certain city are notable in the first place, my cull criteria makes the most sense. If a source can be found that states songs about a certain city have particular significance in general, then we could add a preface, referencing the source in question, and then include all the non-notable songs we want, per
WP:LISTN.
TimTempleton(talk)(cont)23:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Although realistically, there will likely be no lists that survive this threshold, but that's the way it should be then. Non-notable songs in non-notable categories don't deserve an article. Taken to the extreme, I could upload to YouTube a video of me singing into my iPhone about my town and then add an article, sourced with the YouTube link, which we don't want.
TimTempleton(talk)(cont)23:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Draft:David Hildebrand (politician) already declined at AfC by myself and
DGG. Draft creator unhappy with the decision based on the conversation on my talk page. Bottom line is the subject of the article is only a candidate and is already listed on the election page in Wikipedia. Unless he wins or can be found to be notable for something else, he fails
WP:BIO.
CNMall41 (
talk)
06:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The subject of the article meets Number 3 of
WP:NPOL: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". He has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.
As stated in
WP:GNG, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Here, the subject has been covered in multiple printed newspapers and online sources, some of which are cited in the article. Coverage is ongoing, becoming more significant daily.
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Here, the sources cited are major news sources, online blogs, and video news programs. There are plenty of them secondary sources, ranging in reliability.
Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. Here, though the article is just a stub. But that does not mean it is not notable. There is more content to be written and more sources available.
I don't know what standards you're using, but the wikipedia standards clearly show you are incorrect in your judgment, and I ask you to fix yourself.
Delete. No candidate in any election ever fails to be the subject of some coverage in the context of the election campaign itself — so that falls under
run of the mill, and is not coverage that can be used to make a candidate pass GNG just because some media coverage exists. If the mere existence of campaign-specific coverage were enough in and of itself to get over GNG, then every candidate in any election would always get over GNG. But our job is to maintain articles about holders of office, not everybody who ever just ran for one — we have an established consensus that Wikipedia is
WP:NOT a repository of campaign brochures for unelected candidates. To make a candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article, you must show one of three things: (1) he's the winner of the Senate election in November, (2) he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before he became a candidate, or (3) his candidacy is getting so much more coverage than most other candidacies are also getting that you could credibly claim his candidacy had already made him nationally famous (the
Christine O'Donnell exception.) Yes, if he actually manages to defeat Dianne Feinstein in the primary, then in all likelihood the coverage of him will expand enough to pass that last condition — but simply being able to show four pieces of campaign-related coverage is not evidence that a candidate has already cleared our notability standards, because every candidate in any election could always show four pieces of campaign-related coverage, and he's also not a special case just because he might defeat Dianne Feinstein in a primary that hasn't happened yet, because
WP:CRYSTAL also applies. If you could show something like Christine O'Donnell's 168 footnoted references, then his candidacy could be considered a special case — but just four doesn't cut it.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Also, candidates can be covered in Wikipedia if they are candidate, but that doesn't mean they qualify for their own page. In this case, he is already listed as a candidate in the
United States Senate election in California, 2018 page. However, he would not qualify for his own page based on the reasons given above by Bearcat. --
CNMall41 (
talk)
20:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I appreciate your response. I do say that it seems that your established consensus seems to be waning:
Danny_TarkanianScott AshjianJohn ChachasWayne_Allyn_RootLarry_ElderRon Unz... I could spend all day finding articles about people who are only on wikipedia because of their runs for office, and unlike with our subject here, written about mainly by themselves. You seem to be doing a few things:
1) Treating all races the same, comparing a race for city council, or representative from Delaware, in the same context as a U.S. Senate race in California.
Even if you come to the same conclusion, you are making an error if you're not using different criteria for one office from the other.
2) Treating sources such as Fox News as more reliable than the Sacramento Bee.
Just look at the 168 footnotes you're citing for
Christine O'Donnell. If you're valuing quantity over quality, there are several dozen blogposts and videos featuring our subject here I could include.
3) Pronouncing a rule of general applicability but only applying it in select cases.
Just because "every" candidate will get some news coverage, does not mean that the news coverage they get should be discounted. If the general rule is that media coverage is a sign of notability, then media coverage is a sign of notability. Applying it differently to one category of people over another is ridiculous. All serial killers will get some media coverage, would you say that their media coverage doesn't count? Rather, the rule should be to judge the reliability of the sources and how much they directly are reporting on the subject - no discount should be given to campaign coverage and the reporting should not be analyzed differently. AND, since your supposed *consensus* to the contrary is being arbitrarily applied depending on the editor and the moment, I don't think it's a rule with much staying power.
@
Jonivy: Your arguments are faulty and I just want you to understand that this isn't a rigged competition. First, please read
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Pointing to other deficient articles isn't a valid argument; it would result in a race to the bottom with our content getting worse due to declining standards. Second, it appears the failed candidates you listed pass
WP:GNG. This subject does not. Per
WP:NPOL, Wikipedia does not have different criteria for different elections. This is a global encyclopedia and it would be impossible to suss those gradations out. Thirdly, per
WP:RS, we don't have a sliding rule on sources. Consensus determines if a source is usable and after that, it's a numbers game.
WP:SPS disallows blogs. Many editors discount coverage from local news sources, especially where the subjects are of purely local interest and are otherwise
run of the mill. I think you also need to read
WP:BIO1E. The consensus determines if a person known for one particular event is otherwise a low-profile individual. Sometimes the crowd here fawns over a
two-minute celebrity because of large volumes of coverage. We don't want to otherwise try to write biographies of an also-ran based upon slim coverage. I understand you're a very inexperienced editor and I know some people take deletion personally. Rather than harbor bitterness over this, please accept that the
notability criteria are something you need to edit inside. None of us likely have animus against Hildebrand; there's just not enough source material for us to feel this encyclopedia should discuss him in a standalone manner. You can always add more content to the article about this race. Chris Troutman (
talk)02:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
You're being capricious and insisting that you're using standards at the same time. You should pick one and stick with it. I could understand if you wanted to say, "Someone running for President and someone running for postal carrier have the same notability from my personal perspective." But if you're going to cite rules, standards, and guides, you should at least find one that backs up what you're saying. I can point to the standards that seem to exist based on the articles that are deleted vs those that are not, and I can point to all of the language written in the
WP:N guidance. Ultimately, wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If you and this brigade wish to do one thing, there is nothing I can do to stop you. I can point to
WP:N guidelines which clearly state that there is a presumption of notability when a subject receives significant coverage from reliable sources, but you are free to ignore those "rules" - after all, they are a reflection of consensus, not a mandate. But I implore you to develop intelligent standards and apply them evenly. If this encyclopedia is to contain information about political races, as it does, then this brigade of censorship is not healthy and does not improve the experience for readers or editors. I've been reading and contributing to wikipedia for 15 years. It is definitely a new-found consensus to attack articles like this simply because the subject is a candidate for an office - handicapping the media coverage, simply because the subject is a political candidate, and making up a new set of rules that say that media coverage doesn't count.
Jon Ivy (
talk)
08:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
A publication like the Sacramento Bee has a duty to provide coverage of all elections of consequence to its readers. Wikipedia has a long standing policy that being a candidate for public office is not a sign of default notability, and so such local coverage is counted as routine. This especially applies to candidates only running in a primary. On the other hand, this does not apply to people who are otherwise notable, which virtually all significant candidates in a presidential primary will be.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
16:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Danny_Tarkanian,
Scott Ashjian,
John Chachas,
Wayne_Allyn_Root,
Larry_Elder and
Ron Unz are not proof that our established consensus about the notability or non-notability of candidates is "waning" — every single one of them actually makes some other claim of notability besides the fact of being a candidate, and every single one of them cites a lot more sources than have been shown here. Whether all of their other notability claims are compelling or well-sourced ones is a different matter that would require detailed review, and perhaps nomination for deletion as well if they're not really cutting it — but none of them are claiming that the subject is notable just for being a candidate in and of itself.
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments are rarely compelling evidence in an AFD discussion — nothing stops anybody from creating an article about anything or anyone whether that topic meets our notability standards or not, but we have to actually notice a bad, improperly sourced article about a non-notable topic before we can do anything about it, and bad articles about non-notable topics do sometimes fly under the radar for a while because the rate at which new articles get created sometimes outpaces our ability to stay on top of getting rid of the bad ones. So the existence of any article about an unsuccessful election candidate is not in and of itself proof that this one has to be kept too — the other person may have a different notability claim besides candidacy alone, or their article may also be deletable and just hadn't gotten caught yet. "Consensus", for AFD purposes, is established by our stated inclusion criteria and actual AFD practice, not by the mere existence of any article that seems to contradict it.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete a candidate for a party nomination. Actually the article is less than clear on his actually filing to run. Short of winning the nomination, he is unlikely to be notable.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
15:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
1) Actually, he's not a candidate for a party nomination. If you were an expert on California elections, like I am, you may know that our primaries are open, and that the top-two vote-getters from June will be on the ballot in November. 2) If you're basing his notability on a reading of the article, then you're suggesting I could edit the article to make him more notable, a suggestion that seems illogical.
Jon Ivy (
talk)
01:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - after all the socking, tantrums and name calling of the recent edit war, nothing has emerged even remotely close to notability. Almost all refs are simple sales listings. The nearest to notability is a blog style post about an interview where the interviewee is a fitness coach. Not quite
WP:GNG. Very evidently a piece of pure promotion with no place on Wikipedia. VelellaVelella Talk 03:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - As noticed by Velella above, see the article's history in which someone called Lisamaymgt has fought pretty hard to keep the article alive with little regard for community collaboration or WP procedures. Meanwhile, the singer herself certainly has a quantity of song listings, stream links, and very brief introductions, but
significant coverage has not happened. Also note that the singer's common name makes searching a bit of a challenge. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)15:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Reference 8 said that he was with the team but I cannot find any source to help figure out whether he had any appearance for the team. --
Lerdsuwa (
talk)
01:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: Couldn't identify any in-depth coverage online (Google results are only reports of team and/or match line-ups). This seems to suggest that the subject fails the GNG, which overrules
WP:NFOOTY, but his career was a decade ago so I'm not exactly sure. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
11:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete -I don't know him and this article edit before 2009, That Thai League wasn't a professional league so I can't find any reference about him what team or stat. In my opinion I think this article doesn't have benefit and not have a reliable source.
Ministerboy (
talk)
12:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not informative and vague. What is "large"? What is the cut-off? Raw data doesn't say anything: Malaysian Chinese are the majority in Perai, with 36,4% of the population; in Batu Pahat Malaysian Chinese are a "significant minority" with 44,7% - what makes up the rest of those places? Merging some statistics to
Malaysian Chinese is the best option.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK12:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep per our
editing policy. The topic is notable as it is covered in detail in sources such as Unsettling Absences: Urbanism in Rural Malaysia and The Management of Secondary Cities in Southeast Asia. Note also that merger precludes deletion per
WP:MAD.
Andrew D. (
talk)
12:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
It appears that Soetermans wants the page improved and/or merged. My point is that these things are not done by deletion.
AFD is not cleanup. Improvements to the page should be discussed on its talk page.
Andrew D. (
talk)
12:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm saying there isn't anything to improve, because it has an ill-defined subject: "List of cities and towns in Malaysia with large Malaysian Chinese populations", which is incoherent and vague. For a third time, what makes something a "large population"? Do you have an answer? Because if we humble Wikipedians would decide what's "large", that would be
WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH or at least
WP:SYNTH. Let's remove the word "large"; should we list all places in Malaysia with any percentage of Malaysian Chinese? That there are places with large populations of Malaysian Chinese can easily be listed in a table at
Malaysian Chinese. And as far as I know from my Wikipedia experience, suggesting a merge as an option is fine in an AfD.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK13:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
You could have an arbitrary cut-off, say with a definition of a majority minority population (see
Majority minority), or you could do a standard 10% or greater with a minimum number of 1,000 people. Or you could work from the top, with the top 50 cities with large Chinese populations (arranged either by proportion of population or by number). Agreed that as it stands it's a little vague.
Stui (
talk)
16:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 05:40, 14 February 2018 Not not(UTC)
Keep. The majority cities are clearly sensible and comprehensive (though population cutoff may be an issue). The large minority cities less so. I'm not sure this is a deletion candidate, but I don't see anything wrong with a Merge either.
SportingFlyer (
talk)
18:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete populations migrate, a list such as this either has to cover the topic in a broad historical framework, and be unreasonably long, or be overly presentist for no good reason.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
15:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
delete. Not a suitable topic for an article. First why single out this demographic, second why these towns – what is "large"? Tried looking at the reference but that is no longer online, and is only available from the wayback machine so unreadable and badly out of date. Might do as a table in e.g.
Malaysian Chinese, properly sourced, but no way needs its own article.--
JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds22:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete as this is a vague representation of population data with an arbitrary selection criteria. It is not useful for the encyclopaedia. An equivalent example would be [List of cities in India with large Bengali population]. But there are many such permutations possible if we replace Bengali by any other ethnicity. How do we select which ethnicity to use? It is enough to keep demographic data of each city/town in its article.--
DreamLinker (
talk)
17:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. At the time I posted my original comment, the article did state that she was a municipal councillor in the city of Salta, rather than a member of the legislature of Salta Province — because the nominator is the one who changed Jorge's notability claim from "member of the provincial legislature" to "deputy municipal councillor in the city" in the process of nominating it. I failed to catch that they had done that at the time, and it was reverted back to the original text after I posted my comment — but I did not misread or misrepresent what the article said at the time, the nominator (who's since been blocked) changed the article to misrepresent her actual notability claim, and it didn't get reverted back until after I commented. The topic here actually was a member of a provincial legislature, however, which is an
WP:NPOL pass — some referencing improvement is definitely needed here, but we do indeed keep articles about provincial or state legislators. And Lonehexagon is also correct that the sources refer to her as Gabriela, not Patricia. Flag for refimprove, and move the article to her
WP:COMMONNAME, but keep.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep She is not a deputy municipal councilor. She is a member of the provincial legislature, which is basically equivalent to being in a state legislature in the United States, and clearly passes notability guidelines. She is "for the provincial capital", in that that is her district, she is not a member of the municipal council but the provincial legislature.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Provincial legislator. Also note that most reports refer to her as Gabriela Jorge, not Patricia. Some news found here:
Salta Entre Lineas. The results reference linked in the article does pull up
this which shows results in her election. --
Enos733 (
talk)
05:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep I looked into this person and they got quite a bit of coverage as an activist and in her position. As someone else mentioned, she typically uses the name "Gabriela Jorge" (without Patricia) so that may be part of why it was difficult initially to find sourcing.
Lonehexagon (
talk)
20:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Update: Now that the nominator's malfeasance has been revealed and I've withdrawn my isolated delete vote accordingly, I've requested that MBisanz come back and just close this as a
WP:SNOW keep instead of leaving it open for another week. There's no chance whatsoever that it's going anywhere, so there's no point in leaving it open anymore.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete There is not a single source for List of Brooksfilms productions. Although Brooksfilms was founded by Mel Brooks, this article doesn't even mentions that got either Oscar wins or nominations. There are also no indications of notability, and it fails GNG and
WP:NCORP. This is why it should be deleted.
Evil Idiot (
talk)
15:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)reply
This would seem to be complementary to
Category:Brooksfilms films, and it is standard to index articles on notable films by their production companies. I don't know why it should matter for this purpose whether Brooksfilms as a company satisfies GNG (though I'd be surprised if it doesn't), as this isn't an article on the company per se but, again, a standard index of notable films. I also don't see a credible claim that such information is not verifiable, and the films' credits would presumably verify this even if nowhere else (just as you don't need a secondary source to verify a book's publisher). Maybe there's an argument that the nominator has not presented, but I'm not seeing a compelling reason for deletion or even a legitimate concern here. postdlf (talk)
16:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep refs would help but are already available on the individual film articles. Includes extra info to the category such as gross and production company, an awards column could be added but as it is it serves as a useful index page.
Atlantic306 (
talk)
18:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Why exactly is this needed? There's already a category performing the same function. We don't keep lists of "Burgers made by McDonalds" or "Furniture made by Ikea". Why is this different?
Dolescum (
talk)
13:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)reply
See
WP:WEDONTNEEDIT,
WP:NOTDUP, and
WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST for a hint at why your comment hasn't advanced the discussion, not to mention the fact that while all of the films listed here are notable, meriting their own articles, the same would not be true of the products you listed as inapt comparisons (but see also
List of McDonald's products).
Actually, I would refer you to read
WP:NOTDIR and note that this could very easily be seen as a sales catalogue or list of products and the notability of the individual works is irrelevant to that. Throwing up accusations that my comment "hasn't advanced the discussion" looks rather defensive of you on the matter. I'd also remark that the several McDonald's products are apt comparisons as several products, such as the Big Mac, are cultural icons. Can you offer an argument as to what this list offers over a self-maintaining category, given that it simply replicates information already present in the individual articles?
Dolescum (
talk)
05:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Sortability; annotations on distribution studio, year of release, and gross; and the possibility of direct sourcing. And no, I don't think this could "verily easily be seen as a sales catalogue" (yet the category poses no problem to you?), it's a list of notable films released over a span of decades, not a catalog of home media prices or a directory of theater showtimes (and if it had that information we would fix it by removing it). And please do read all of NOTDIR: "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content." postdlf (talk)
17:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I do see this as someone attempting to build a list of entertainment products released by Brooksfilm. You'll note category 4. Despite the fact the tone of your responses has been so obnoxious I feel like declaring delete simply to spite you, I think the reasoning underlying your responses is good, so keep.
Dolescum (
talk)
21:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
From the text in the article this appears to be a means of enjoying comics through VR. This may or may not be notable in the future, but at present a single reference and little better in searches does not add up to notability. Fails
WP:GNGVelellaVelella Talk 05:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There's no article on this specific chart nor the RIA in Singapore, so I'm not sure what makes reaching number one on a digital streaming chart encyclopedic. Are these considered the definitive #1 songs in Singapore or just streaming? Is there significance to reaching number one on this charts, thus better sourcing would be required than just to the chart itself? Fails
WP:LISTN. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me02:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Well, it only has one song in it at present, because we are only one month into 2018 – presumably not even Ed Sheeran will manage to be number one for a whole year. And I don't understand how a British singer can have an American song... The real question, as the nominator says, is whether this is the official chart in Singapore or not. I have concerns about the other charts the article creator has been editing as well – for example, the
List of number-one songs of 2018 (Colombia) uses the
Monitor Latino chart, but I'm pretty sure Colombia's official chart is supplied by
National-Report.
Richard3120 (
talk)
15:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - I considered this chart to be official and at least acceptable, given that the RIA represents all of the music industry in Singapore, and it's also a part of
IFPI (this requisite by itself has allowed other charts to be accepted as "official" here on Wikipedia). Nevertheless, I can see how it can be considered irrelevant, as it only covers streaming, so if the article gets deleted I can understand. --
CHUI372 (
talk)
01:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Multiple reasons. The article consists of two (unsourced) competing histories, and the claim of notability (that he served in a role that was a predecessor to
Surgeon General) is unsourced and somewhat dubious.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
21:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. I'd be willing to buy "Director of Hospitals of the Continental Army in Virginia" as a credible notability claim if the article were actually supported by
reliable source coverage about him, but that's not what the sources here are. #1 is a (deadlinked) family genealogy, not a reliable or notability-supporting source, #2 is here only to support a statement about the usual age at which men married in that era but contains no information about Rickman whatsoever (not even a glancing mention of his name!), and #3 is the (deadlinked) front splash page of a local historical society (with no verifiable evidence on a Wayback Machine search that it actually contained any content about Rickman himself.) And in addition to not being reliable sources in the first place, all of them are just footnoting the conflicting speculations about his personal life, rather than any content that actually pertains to his potential notability claim as a public official at all. Which means none of the sources here are cutting it at all in terms of establishing notability, and the role is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be sourced much better than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment. Going only by the current article and its properly-formatted references, there would be only two, fairly minor, points to add to the previous discussion. Firstly, a badly-formatted reference in the second paragraph of the "Kittiewan Plantation interpretation" section of the article does provide a legitimate source (even if it is primary and far too brief to contribute much towards notability) - a
contemporary announcement of Rickman's 1775 marriage to a daughter of
Benjamin Harrison V. Secondly, that full section of the article is shown by a look at the article history to have been added by an SPA in 2009 - and reference #3 is best taken not as an actual reference but as a declaration of authorship by the SPA. Moreover,
a Ph.D. dissertation with two passing mentions of Rickman sources one of those two references (on page 242) in a way which strongly suggests that the SPA (or a namesake) is or was connected as a volunteer, contractor or employee to the current owners of Kittiewan Plantation.
Turning more generally to potentially reliable external sources, most relate to his period as what the article refers to as "Director of Hospitals of the Continental Army in Virginia" between 1776 and 1780. The nominator seems to regard the notability of this role as in some way dubious, and the claim of notability in the article is certainly rather overblown. I can only find the title as the article gives it in modern sources, and the actual title given to Rickman seems to vary from one resolution of the Continental Congress to the next - the situation behind it seems most clearly described in
this account (which I am inclined to take as a reliable source). Judging from this, the official at this time who was most directly the predecessor of the
Surgeon General of the United States Army was probably not Rickman but
William Shippen Jr. - but Rickman was completely outside Shippen's authority. Another wrinkle in this situation is that the same work as I have just cited elsewhere describes how the Commonwealth of Virginia
set up its own completely separate hospital, appointing
James McClurg as its director.
Rickman's career in the post scarcely seems to have gone smoothly. The Ph.D. dissertation already mentioned (this time on page 178) notes that Rickman's original appointment attracted accusations of nepotism, and cites
John E. Selby's "The Revolution in Virginia, 1775-1783" to this effect (though the relevant page of this is not visible in GBooks). The book mentioned in the last paragraph describes not only the previously mentioned turf wars but also the delays in finding a suitable hospital site that preceded them. Then, following some rather disastrous results of a smallpox inoculation program (for which
this account seems to be the most thorough source, and
this a fairly full but possibly less reliable one), the Continental Congress suspended Rickman from his post in December 1777 but reinstated him after an investigation in March 1778. After that, the sources go fairly quiet. His resignation in October 1780, in the midst of a reorganisation which had no obvious place for him, is approved
in the Journal of the Continental Congress, who also then chase him over a couple of items of unfinished business. The next we seem to hear is in late 1783, when his widow petitions the Virginia House of Delegates for what amounts to backpay apparently owed to him -
she gets title to about 6,000 acres in Ohio. After that, we get a chain of legal cases over the next century, all disputing or claiming this inheritance - and all quite likely in (easily findable) primary sources only. There are quite a few sources attesting to his ownership of what is now
Kittiewan, but while this is almost certain to be true, it seems difficult to find any source that does more than assert this.
Moreover, Rickman effectively has no verifiable past before 1775 and his marriage to Elizabeth Harrison. In the two or three years before the marriage, he slowly gets more and more passing mentions in primary sources - but that is all. The William Rickman who was a surgeon on a Royal Navy ship between 1766 and 1769 seems to have one or two reliable sources, but none which firmly connect his with our William Rickman. And we seem to have no reliable information about other aspects of his previous life - when he was born, had he married previously, and so on.
What we are therefore left with is a person almost certainly with enough good sources to guarantee notability for a very limited period of his life - but where even the basic facts of the rest of his life can not be reliably traced. And very little (perhaps none) of the current article would be likely to survive in a satisfactory article here. So, while in principle, there is enough for a keep !vote, it is not clear that it is worth it in practice.
PWilkinson (
talk)
00:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - I don't find many sources other than those already listed. There is some mention of him as justice fo the peace in Charles City in newspapers from that era
[43], but I'm not familiar enough with the era to know if attaching that William Rickman to this one is obvious or OR, although he is listed next to his neighbor David Minge in those newspaper articles. It seems certain to me that he was chief administrator of Continental Army Hospitals and director of a hospital in Virginia during the Revolutionary War (I would consider the thesis a reliable source, here). That he died in 1783, and he married Elizabeth Harrison, daughter of Benjamin Harrison. That he lived in Charles City. I wouldn't argue against saying that he owned land which is now all or part of Kittiewan, although I agree that the sources there aren't the best. Based on the sources I've looked at, I wouldn't include anything about his life before his marriage to Elizabeth. And while I see genealogies and DAR records about his descendents, I also don't see anything reliable that can connect him to any children. With those caveats, he seems a suitable subject for the encyclopedia and an article can be written about him wich is verifiable, neutral point of view, and not original research.
Smmurphy(
Talk)17:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete The sources are pretty weak. And all in French -- especially given that fr wiki discussed and then deleted. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Theredproject (
talk •
contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - Just by going from English language sources, this most certainly was a real village.
[44] Even if there is a "partial" copyvio,
AfD is not the answer. Just remove the the copyvio content. It can be reduced to a stub if need be. --
Oakshade (
talk)
01:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - Strangely, the user who contributed the material that is both on the blog and in the article,
User:Andreypl, has a very similar name to the author of the blog, Andrzej Polska. To me, the problem isn't likely copyright violation - although I don't know what copyright blogspot might claim if the material was posted there first. It might be that primary sources are not optimal for this sort of information. In any case, this looks like a real place and generally would be considered suitable for inclusion based on
WP:NGEO.
Smmurphy(
Talk)01:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment, have added a possible copy vio tag to the relevent section.
Coolabahapple (
talk) 03:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC) ps. although it looks like it was first on WP (just in a different format) as the article was created here, and subsequent additional information added before the information appeared on the blog according to the dates of the post there.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
04:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep per
WP:GEOLAND - the village clearly existed per the article and cursory BEFORE. On procedural grounds this is a wrong nomination - a copyvio should've gone to a speedy deletion request, not AfD, if on the entire article. I do not see the copyvio at the moment - but if it was on part of the article, that part should've been redacted (and revdelled).
Icewhiz (
talk)
13:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I think I know why the article creator has avoided adding sources now...thanks for the source which must be added if this survives AFD if only to be able to read this following quote which is a classic ...
The unrealistic stunts will actually make you squirm in your seat. Teachers are bound to get irritated at the way they are presented in this flick. They appear as if they are ramp-walking and the less said about the school principal the better.
Ileana wears barely there outfits and has nothing much to do in the film except look glamourous. The camera tries to capture more of her midriff in various angles than her face. Perhaps the director knows she cannot act.
The music by Keeravani is pathetic. So are the dance numbers. Kota Srinivasa Rao does justice in a cameo. The double entendre and the bizarre stunts really hurt. Only a miracle can save this film -- watch it at your own risk.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Doesn't appear to meet
WP:NALBUM; additionally: "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography."
Enwebb (
talk)
03:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
The Quireboys#Albums. I guess this is well after the Quireboys heyday and the music press had lost interest in them, although I wouldn't be surprised if there was a review of this record in the print versions of NME or Q at the time. Fails
WP:NALBUM but no harm in redirecting it though.
Richard3120 (
talk)
14:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep According to
WP:BEFORE, "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability" before nominating an article for deletion. A quick Google search shows several examples of significant coverage in secondary sources to satisfy
WP:GNG. She is a very popular journalist and was arrested live on TV;[2] an incident that was widely reported. I have added these to the article.[3][4][5][6][7] She's also won awards from NBC.[8]Lonehexagon (
talk)
20:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)reply
These seem mostly to be videos and websites. The NBC "awards" are self-described as: After having Lunch with the CEO Kin Kariisa , I walked away with three awards and three Certificates of recognition. I have been awarded for being the most Daring reporter, Best person of the week and NBS TV Personality in other media. I have also won A cash prize, and a Dinner Voucher for two. You can't, with a straight face, be proposing that these demonstrate notability, right?
Agricola44 (
talk)
18:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is a mess of language template errors on gmq-bot. Even though the article and the subject might be notable I am nominating this soft deletion or draftify to fix. Hagennos❯❯❯Talk02:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The reason all these errors are showing up is the recent rewriting of the {{lang}} template. There are two possible solutions: 1) set all instances of this template in the article to use a language tag that the template finds acceptable (gmq would do the trick if there isn't anything more specific), or 2) request support for the gmq-bot tag at
Template talk:Lang. And
Hagennos, AfD isn't the place to seek help for fixing technical issues in articles; if you can't think of a more specific place, the
WP:Teahouse is usually a good starting point. –
Uanfala (talk)05:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep I can't see any "mess" in the article. Perhaps the technical issues have been sorted out since it was nominated for deletion? /
FredrikT (
talk)
15:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm only seeing one non-trivial source (a brief review
here); doesn't appear to meet
WP:NBOOK. This is mostly another platform for the writer and all the references listed pertain to him, and not this book.
Enwebb (
talk)
01:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Hmm, yes it's unreleased...but it gets released in a month and there's already loads of coverage, so deleting it now would be pointless. --
Michig (
talk)
07:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep: I agree with Michig - this article has been created too soon, but their last two albums reached no. 1 and no. 7 on the Billboard 200 so I think we can be pretty confident that this record will have plenty of reviews and a chart position four weeks from now, so the deletion isn't worth it.
Richard3120 (
talk)
14:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Seems pretty stupid and incredibly pedantic to delete an article which will clearly satisfy notability very soon. And to be frank is notable now. Stupid, pointless discussion and a complete and utter waste of everyone above's time.
If you had waited a few weeks to create the page and for notability to be satisfied then instead of "soon" then we might not be having this "stupid, pointless discussion".
Richard3120 (
talk)
21:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not a notable product, seems to be a review article, would be better served on the page of the Dell Inspiron lineup
BrxBrx(
talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})00:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Page is of a non-notable product, which can be better served by including it in the main article on the HP Pavilion line.
BrxBrx(
talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})00:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Internet radio services are not handed an automatic free pass over
WP:NMEDIA just because they're technically verifiable as existing, but this isn't sourced anywhere near well enough to pass
WP:GNG in lieu: two of the three sources are press releases from the station, and the third is a deadlink whose former content is entirely unverifiable.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - The page about the organizer of this project, Arthur Charles,
was recently deleted - I think better sources could make that subject suitable for the encyclopedia in the future. However, Charles' individual projects are not themselves clearly recieving enough coverage that pages about them don't seem overly promotional and have significant POV issues.
Smmurphy(
Talk)21:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relatively young biotech company. Has no products on the market and not even an early stage lead development candidate. "Article" is basically a directory listing and is beset by its creator who is hammering the talk page with demands to "update" it with news about very early and incremental steps in the company's scientific development, based on a primary source (a scientific paper by people affiliated with the company) and a press release hyping it. (these steps may turn out to be correct, or not replicable and thus dead ends, or may turn out to be dead ends several years down the road....). The company is
WP:TOOSOON (if ever) and not worth our effort to maintain. This is pretty much the kind of page we want to rule out by raising NCORP standards.
Jytdog (
talk) 18:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC) (correction
Jytdog (
talk)
14:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC))reply
Keep - Bad faith nomination by an editor trying to avoid a content discussion. Coverage of this company in RS is fairly extensive. Clearly meets
WP:GNG.
NickCT (
talk)
I had been cutting this slack as its notability is marginal at best, but your advocacy has made that not worth while, and more so as time has gone on. Not bad faith, just unwilling to tolerate corporate cruft that is also being bludgeoned.
Jytdog (
talk)
02:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
@
K.e.coffman: - Care to be specific? Which references exactly don't meet which
WP:CORPDEPTH criteria? Your comment re "not achieved anything significant just yet" may be true, but isn't really relevant. If "hasn't achieved anything significant" was a rationale for deletion, we could probably delete a whole bunch of articles.
NickCT (
talk)
13:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Note to closer - A couple editors seem to be stripping references from the article in what seems like an attempt to make it appear less notable. I'm going to include the stripped references here for the record.
NickCT (
talk)
22:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I've been asked to elaborate on the sources that do not meet CORPDEPTH. The sources above are exactly such sources, such as
"Could an injection reverse hearing loss? This Woburn startup thinks so". Boston Globe.
These types of articles discuss the company's hopes and aspirations. They lack intellectual independence and are insufficient for notability.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
00:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Greetings. I do not understand your comment about "intellectual independence". The link takes us to a Boston Globe article and not corporate
puffery. This is a text that mentions extensively a corporation - precisely the kind of appearance in a
reliable source required by Wikipedia. I'm sure you're not suggesting we should prefer information from the company itself, since Wikipedia actively and explicitly discourages
the use of primary sources, i.e. info from the subject itself. Take care. -
The Gnome (
talk)
10:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep This article about a
private corporation meets the
required criteria: it has been the "subject of significant coverage in secondary sources", per citations above (plus others one can find, such as
here,
here, or
here), which go beyond "one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source"; coverage in sources evidently extends far "above routine announcements"; and so on. This is a keeper. -
The Gnome (
talk)
10:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete A run-of-the-mill medical startup, no indications of notability (but a lot of aspiration), reference contents are not intellectually independent, relies extensively on PRIMARY data, fails
WP:CORPDEPTH and/or
WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG.
HighKing++ 23:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - a passing reference, two 'local business on the rise' articles and a web story that looks like an uncritical regurgitation of a press release. This company may become notable, but it doesn't look like they are there yet.
Agricolae (
talk)
00:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
not notable, andpromotional Over-personal article, presumably with some kind of COI. The references are almost entirely to items he has written himself, except for an item in his university's alumni publication, not usually considered a sufficient reliable source for notability . DGG (
talk )
23:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Nothing stated in the article is an automatic pass of any Wikipedia notability criterion in the absence of enough
reliable source coverage to clear
WP:GNG, but the sourcing here doesn't clear GNG. The only source here that's about him in any non-trivial way is the alumni newsletter of his own alma mater, which is not a notability-assisting source, and everything else is a directory listing, a piece of his own writing or a source in which he's trivially namechecked as a giver of soundbite in an article about some other topic. A person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of reliable source coverage, not by getting quoted in coverage of other things or by being the author of his own sources.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
KEEP A search at google books turned up a number of good refs that speak to his notability (for example receiving the Moti award 2003 AD for their work and effort in Nepali art and literature and his impact on Nepalese art described in a book titled "Facing Globalization in the Himalayas: Belonging and the Politics of the Self".--
NerudaPoet (
talk)
20:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep I don't recall creating this article, and I don't have a lot of energy to argue against deletion, but
this source also describes him as "one of Nepal's most prolific commercial directors".
Calliopejen1 (
talk)
00:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Nothing cited in the article counts towards
WP:GNG, and I can find nothing better online, only his own promotional websites and suchlike. The best independent source is a blog about Elliott running "scams". Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a
WP:SPA.
Edwardx (
talk)
22:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete: An article with a history of
WP:SPA accounts alternately adding and removing material about particular financial ventures which the subject may have promoted. But I am not seeing a substantial claim to notability, not
WP:RS evidence. The Canadian Business article may be the most substantial but doesn't demonstrate encyclopaedic notability of any individual discussed there. Fails
WP:BASIC,
WP:GNG.
AllyD (
talk)
08:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - He has played in one first-class cricket match and passes notability criteria. There isn't any dead link in the article as ESPN Cricinfo and Cricket Archive always be accurate in the process of collecting information.
Abishe (
talk)
11:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment I've fixed the first reference using web.archive.org, and it's a profile in a national newspaper. I can see a lot more on her online in Nepali, including what looks like television appearances, but will leave it to editors with more knowledge of Nepali media to judge on whether there are sufficient
WP:RS.
The Mighty Glen (
talk)
23:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep as per the rationale posted by Megalibrarygirl. The are many sources and references available, and of course they don't have to be in the article yet, just available. This article needs expansion not deletion.
Antonioatrylia (
talk)
21:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No opposition on my part, but this wouldn't be a merger so much as a mere mention of this (outdated) terminology on these pages. I'm indifferent as to where to redirect to. Sandstein 16:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
All the references links are dead expect third ref link but the sites includes another artist name called "Prakash Gurung" so this page should be deleted.
SeytX (
talk)
22:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
All the references links of the articles are dead and the artist is not notable. I strongly think it should be removed from Wikipedia.
SeytX (
talk)
22:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not Reliable References and the references of kathmandu post doesnt enlist name Devika Bandana in the news. I review the article and found it doesn't meet wikipedia notable artist policy. So it should be removed from wikipedia.
SeytX (
talk)
22:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy Delete. Looks like a hoax to me. Some modern people are named Elio Daou. Eliojah Daan is plausible for the period, but would be more of an Israelite name - but due to
Tribe of Dan and the double-
Theophoric name using the Israelite form (
El (deity) +
Theophory in the Bible#Yah theophory. Phoenicians would be more likely to be using
Baal (as in
Hannibal) and a few other suffixes. I don't see sources for this, and some other details do not add up - e.g. the gladiatorial aspect and being the Butcher of Kallas - Kallas seeming to be used in Estonia.
Ziyad (a common modern day (and post Islam) Arabic name) would be a highly unlikely name for his father.
Icewhiz (
talk)
09:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Snow delete as failing
WP:V. As an example, even the title of the citation for the book "Who's Who in the Greek World" has been changed to "Who's Who in the Persian World" and links to a random unrelated page
[3].
24.151.116.12 (
talk)
17:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete - as noted above all of the evidence points to this being a hoax. Aside from the problems identified above it is highly unlikely that any sources from the time would reveal some of the details here or that subsequent scholars would speculate on them (eg that his wife was childless as she had ovarian cancer)
Dunarc (
talk)
20:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Nothing stated in the article constitutes an automatic free pass over our notability standards for broadcasters just because he exists, but the article is not
reliably sourced well enough to get him over
WP:GNG for it — all of the references are either
primary sources, or brief blurbs which aren't substantive enough to count as GNG-assisting coverage.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of
WP:SIGCOV. Fails
WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a
WP:SPA. Plenty of stuff about him out there, but all written by him or one of his companies.
Edwardx (
talk)
20:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Mere PROMO for a nonnotable "national expert" (in branding and marketing.) His "book" is a selfpublished e-book described on the page as "available free" for downloading.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
16:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as mere PROMO unsupported by
WP:RS. Lede reads: "an entrepreneur, consultant and author, with the bulk of his clients being American." Problem is, there are no verifiable, independent sources. He is described as "Fatt is the former Marketing Editor for the Hospitality News.," a non-notable job, sourced only to Hospitality News. Article also asserts that "Fatt has been featured in..." a list of publicattions that includes at least one WP:RS, the Rocky Mountain News, problem is, the citation is to "“The Street Smart Secret To Getting New Customers To Your Restaurant. Hospitality News Rocky Mtn. States Edition, pg. 9." which is not the
rocky Mountain News, but the publication Fatt worked for. He may have written this ad other articles listed, in non-notable publications. There is no indication of notability and no SIGCOV.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
16:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Nothing here is a strong claim to passing our notability standards for entrepreneurs, consultants or writers, and all of the sourcing in the article is complete crap with nary a hint of even one
reliable source for the purposes of clearing
WP:GNG. I can't prove it outright, but this is exactly the sort of "trying really hard but completely missing the boat" article that normally pings my
conflict of interest radar.
Bearcat (
talk)
01:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Cannot find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of
WP:SIGCOV. Fails
WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article. I have checked out the references, and they are mentions in passing or press releases at best. Nothing found elsewhere.
Edwardx (
talk)
20:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Lorenzo is the author of three books. His latest book is titled The 60 Second Sale and will be published by John Wiley & Sons - a worldwide publisher of business books. The book's ISBN is 9781119499763.[1]
Argument against deletion: Lorenzo is an expert on sales. He is the published author of three books the most recent due out in July 2018 and published by large United States publishing house. I have edited the page to reflect this. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Lawrencedaniel1999 (
talk •
contribs)
18:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - borderline spam, heavily promotional article about person who does not meet
WP:NAUTHOR nor
WP:GNG. Maybe he is an expert on sales, but that's not part of any of Wikipedia's notability criteria. Most published authors are not notable according to Wikipedia's definition. --bonadeacontributionstalk18:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment the article stinks of promotional editing. I don't see any good references that support a keep, apart from the 40 under 40, it's press releases, Youtube videos, blog posts by him, etc.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
00:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as PROMO. Alleged "best selling" book, Change Agents, may have hit some best-selletr list or other, but I can find no reviews or SIGCOV of it or of Sutherlin.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
16:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Ridiculously promotional copy, i.e. known for popularizing automotive digital marketing in the automobile industry. sourced to his own press release. No refs that suggest notability, I think his book was from a vanity house.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
00:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The "delete" arguments mostly centered around the lack of in-depth, reliable sources. Another argument was that the school had no physical presence, which was disproven. The "keep" votes point to the existence of reliable sources, such that the article meets
WP:V , and noting that secondary education articles have traditionally had a lower "entry barrier", a precedent for which there has been no consensus to overturn. There seems to be no consensus if the reliable sources surpass mere local attention, or the degree of depth of coverage. Overall the consensus based on arguments is "keep" for this topic (meaning this particular high school, not high schools in general), but it is not a strong consensus.
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions)17:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. It's not that we presume notability for high schools, rather, we have the practice of normally keeping them as if they were notable; this is part of a compromise to normally not keep elementary schools. The purpose is to avoid the otherwise consequent thousands of debates. Before we had the compromise, I (and others) could generally source about 1/2 the highschools well enough to keep, and perhaps 1/4 of the elementary schools *somewhat better than that in NYC). The RfC of schooloutcomes said there was no consensus to change the practice of generally keeping high schools (It also said there was no consensus that quoting schooloutcomes was enough of an argument--yes, these two findings are somewhat contradictory, but in cases of doubt, we follow the status quo ) (And I will admit that some people do interpret that AfC otherwise, and they are entitled to their views, even though I think they're not analyzing it properly. As an admin, I alway give very conservative advice, but in a discussion, I think I have the actual responsibility to give whatI think the correct interpretation. ). There is furthermore a reasonable amount of sourcing for this one. Perhaps ones that merely appear on a list might be candidates for removal, if we could get consensus on that--it might be an acceptable compromise. I, at any rate, normally do ~vote delete if there's nothing more than presence on a list, because that isn't enough verification. I usually will support any compromise that gets articles out of AfD, even if I don;t quite agree it's the best compromise possible. DGG (
talk )
11:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Can't see significant coverage and the school is tiny. I take the point about other high schools failing [[WP:SIGCOV}}, but the size and lack of real physical campus of this school seems to make it a special case.
Tacyarg (
talk)
10:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Hello
Tacyarg -- I acknowledge your argument that there is insufficient press coverage of the school, but I disagree. The Denver Post and Colorado Public Radio are reliable sources. Size, however, is specious argument.
Monaco should be deleted from WP because of its tiny size. The school does have a physical presence, even if students are not required to be there.
Tennessee Virtual Academy if it had an article, has 634 students. It is no less a school than any other.
Rhadow (
talk)
12:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Consensus for keeping high schools has not changed (RfC was no consensus). But more so, the CPR story is a fine RS. It has around five paragraphs on this topic. The rest is either in-passing or non-independent I'd say. But it is a high school and it has one solid independent reliable source with plenty of non-independent sourcing we can use for facts.
Hobit (
talk)
06:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Whether or not high schools are inherently notable, there's an established low barrier to entry which this article meets. Namely, based on RS (incidental mentions in the Denver Post, a more substantive mention on
Colorado Public Radio, and a listing on the
Denver Public Schools website) we can do the bare minimum of proving it actually exists which - while not normally sufficient - seems to be for secondary schools.
Chetsford (
talk)
18:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete the rule for high schools only works with institutions that have a physical presence. For institutions that only exist online, they need to be judged by general institutional notability standards, and this institution fails those standards.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
15:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:BLP, not referenced to any strong
reliable source coverage about him, of a filmmaker with no strong claim to passing
WP:CREATIVE. The notability claim here is that he was one of 11 winners of an amateur filmmaking award from his local film festival for a three-minute short film, and the source for that is a mere blurb which mentions his name while failing to actually be about him, and the only other "reference" here is his own self-published YouTube profile. None of this, neither the sourcing nor the substance, is valid grounds for a Wikipedia article.
Bearcat (
talk)
06:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
A person does not automatically qualify for a Wikipedia article just because one source for it exists in their local newspaper. A person qualifies for a Wikipedia article by having a broad range of coverage in a variety of newspapers, not just the moment they have one piece of coverage in an exclusively local context.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
None of the sources are in depth coverage of the subject. At best they are passing mentions and some don't even mention her name. Fails
WP:NACTOR and
WP:GNG. Most of her roles aren't named and she is billed as mother of x, wife of y etc
Dom from Paris (
talk)
13:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Could you please tell us which were significant roles in notable films as per NACTOR please? And which sources meet GNG as per relationship between subject specific criteria and GNG. ? When you !vote it is useful to explain more in detail your reasons
Dom from Paris (
talk)
10:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete -- does not meet
WP:NACTOR and significant RS coverage not found. Roles are all minor; commercial work does not help with ACTOR either. Wikipedia is not a resume hosting service.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
01:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article is on a salesman at On The Run Shoes, a sports retail store in San Francisco, California, and is sourced to the store's website, and profile pages on some body building social media sites. Does not pass the NATHLETE or GNG at this time.
Chetsford (
talk)
20:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is apparently the campus library of an unknown university in India. In my BEFORE I was unable to even identify which university it belongs to via RS, however, via non-RS it appears it belongs to Al-Maqar Dawa College which - itself - doesn't have a WP article to which this could be merged and/or redirected. Fails GNG.
Chetsford (
talk)
19:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Not a noteworthy minor library. I feel it is also a candidate for Speedy deletion. I have tagged as such. Let us see if it gets speedied. --Hagennos❯❯❯Talk13:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak delete - On newspapers.com, I find a couple routine mentions of where he was stationed in the USN (he retired a commander). His obituary is also in the Baltimore Sun, which carried a few other passing social mentions. I don't see enough that would allow for a clearly NPOV article about him, though. Although the current article doesn't mention it, I'm going to add this to the Military delsort list as he was a Naval commander and perhaps someone watching that list would be interested. I would say that his uncle, Dr. Brice W. Goldsborough, might be suitable for an article in the future. That Brice was an interesting medical doctor and a co-founder of the Cambridge, Maryland Hospital, which became Dorchester General Hospital and is now University of Maryland Shore Regional Health.
Smmurphy(
Talk)18:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment. If it was a full obituary as opposed to just a notice of death, then an obit in the Washington Post should satisfy notability requirements. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
15:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure if that is true. I am generally happy for people to believe it, because I think that multiple sources covering an individual should include small newspapers, and often an individuals only coverage in a large paper will be an obituary. But my feeling is that the an obituary is one event, and I'd like to see coverage for other events. For instance in this case, Goldsborough has high enough profiles due to his relationships or public positions (son of a governor, commander in the Navy) that his obituary is nationally covered (
newspapers.com gives versions in Baltimore, Wilmington, and Des Moines). To me, the Baltimore Sun and Des Moines Tribune are both regionally respected newspapers and reliable sources, of only slightly lower stature than the Post (especially before the contraction of news desks in the 2000s). To me, then, all I would need to see is in-depth coverage at another period. All I find are passing mentions, mentions of his uncle, and his wife's obituary.
[4]Smmurphy(
Talk)16:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Not all by itself, no. It would certainly be a valid source in an article that was well-sourced to a solid range and depth of coverage, but it doesn't singlehandedly confer a
WP:GNG pass all by itself as an article's only source.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. I was able to find this
[5]. Seems he rose up to be an embassy attache. A death notice is not enough, even if it is WaPo (and particularly so since he was a Washington area (state dept.) son of an important person (Maryland) - which would make this possibly WaPo local coverage).
Icewhiz (
talk)
08:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. It's certainly possible that he might have a stronger notability claim than this article actually states or sources — but being an embassy attaché is not an automatic Wikipedia inclusion freebie in and of itself, and one death notice is not enough sourcing to get him over
WP:GNG for it. I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody can actually find enough sourcing to write more substance about him than just the fact that he existed, but nothing here is enough.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Of someone ever wants to transwiki then I will undelete for them to do it but transaction has become deprecated anyway as it's often is dumping our rubbish on other wikis who generally don't respond well to that...
SpartazHumbug!05:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)reply
WP:DICDEF of a term, flagged for transfer to Wiktionary since 2014 without the transwiki actually occurring. Four years isn't okay: we need to either force it or dump it now.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Query Is there a policy or guideline dealing with the time period for transwiki requests? My initial thought would be that, as long as the information is sourced and not harmful in some way such as a copyright violation, this situation would be analogous to the reasoning of the essay
WP:NODEADLINE and the policy
WP:PRESERVE.
24.151.116.12 (
talk)
16:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
There's no formal deadline spelled out in policy, but that doesn't mean we have infinite patience for things that aren't happening — it's a pretty well established consensus that even if there isn't a formal deadline per se, things still have to happen within a reasonable amount of time.
Bearcat (
talk)
04:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:BLP of a photographer, formatted as a
résumé rather than an encyclopedia article and not referenced to any
reliable source coverage about him. An artist does not get an automatic pass over
WP:NARTIST (or even
WP:ANYBIO) just by bulletpointing a
primary sourced list of awards -- an award counts as a notability claim only to the extent that it can be
reliably sourced to media coverage about the granting of that award, and not if the only possible source is the award's own self-published website about itself -- and the only other references here are his own website, a short blurb on the corporate
blog of a commercial stock-photo service, and primary source copies of his photographs themselves. Notability for Wikipedia purposes is determined by being the subject of media coverage, not just by being able to primary-source that the person exists -- but there's no evidence of media coverage being shown here.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Sure, I'm not denying that Getty Images is a serious operation. But it's not a media outlet, so blurbing a photographer on its corporate blog doesn't constitute GNG-assisting media coverage.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I get you, and I appreciate your highly thoughtful AfD arguments. I still think that being a Getty staff photog counts for something, GNG-wise, in the sense that they only take very serious types. I also think our photog is probably notable but there are inadequate published sources to demonstrate it.
104.163.148.25 (
talk)
01:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: He's had at least one photobook published.
Here's the publisher's blurb about it. This doesn't prove notability, of course; but it does make me wonder if the feebleness of the current article results in part from its creators' incompetence. --
Hoary (
talk)
00:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
promotional and at most borderline notable. Part of a PR effort which includes the article on the founder, and an attempt to add advertising links for their various services .and other people connected with the company DGG (
talk )
18:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Firstly, as DGG says, the article is promotional. (It was created by an editor with a history of creating promotional articles, beyond all reasonable doubt an undisclosed paid editor.) Secondly, there is a total lack of evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The references include several press releases, pages about the individual partners who own the company (not about the company), pages which merely include the company in a list, and so on. My own searches produced the company's own web site, this Wikipedia article, more press releases, LinkedIn, etc etc: nothing even suggesting notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
JamesBWatson" (
talk)
11:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
promotional and at most borderline notable. Part of a PR effort which includes the article on the firm, and an attempt to add advertising links for his various services . DGG (
talk )
18:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Firstly, the article is blatant promotion. (It was created by an editor with a history of creating promotional articles, beyond all reasonable doubt an undisclosed paid editor.) Secondly, there is a total lack of evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This is an example of
bombarding an article with numerous references in the hope that will give the impression of being well-sourced, but with none of the references contributing evidence of notability. From the 20 references I took a random sample of six of them, as there is a limit to how much time I am willing to spend on analysing a spam article. The six references were as follows. An article in which Sichenzia contributes opinions about the subject of the article, not an article about him; a report published by a company for which he has worked as an editor, so it may be written by him, and in any case it is not an independent source; a dead link, but judging both from the title of the link and the context in which it is cited in the article it was (a) about his company, not about him, and (b) merely a listing of the company in a table, not substantial coverage; a YouTube video which I haven't watched, but from the context in which it is mentioned in the article it is Sichenzia giving his opinion, not coverage about him; a page behind a paywall which I haven't read, but once again from the context in which it is mentioned in the article it is Sichenzia giving his opinion, not coverage about him; a list of nineteen participants in giving a course, Sichenzia being one of the nineteen. Unless I happen by remarkable bad luck to have randomly selected six very atypical references, there is a serious lack of evidence of notability. What is more, my own search failed to find anything better. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
JamesBWatson" (
talk)
11:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Question: Considering the last AFD (with basically the same deletion rationale) closed as unanimous keep less than a month ago, why do you feel the guidance at
Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion or
WP:ATD do not apply here? Also, why do you think renominating for deletion instead of adding the sources mentioned at the last AFD was preferable? Last but not least, how was
WP:BEFORE followed in this case? Regards
SoWhy18:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep the last AFD was in January. The result was keep. The retail chain hasn't suddenly become less notable. Loads of sources with substantial coverage identified during the last nomination. Why are we wasting time on another?
FloridaArmy (
talk)
19:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I disagree, she clearly meets
WP:BASIC at the very least. But as long as her article exists, redirecting/merging would always be the better option. Since you have come back to this nomination btw, would you mind answering my question above why you felt it necessary to renominate this less than a month after the last AFD closed without addressing any of the reasons why the article was kept the last time? Regards
SoWhy08:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. I find it tiring that nowadays "it's a press release!" without proof is deemed sufficient to delete articles about notable subjects. When we no longer accept The Times or The New York Times as reliable sources, what is left? There are dozens of sources about the company and its founder just a short Google search away:
Delete That's funny because I was only thinking to myself that I find it tiring that nowadays reasons such as "but look at all the times it gets mentioned", without bothering to check if it meets the criteria for establishing notability, is trotted out at practically every company-related AfD. This is little more than another version of
WP:GHITS only instead of listing the total, some of the links are posted instead. Articles like
this one from telegraph.co.uk and
and this one that you posted above, filled with intellectually independent gems such as "The White Company said", "the company said", "In a further change set to be announced today", "The group said", "Mrs Rucker said", "Ms Alford-Burnett said", "The group said", "The retailer said", Tpatricia Alford-Burnett, managing director, said", etc. Seriously, the criteria for establishing notability are there for a reason - one of them being to avoid relying on PRIMARY sources (whether published in reliable secondary sources or not) as sources to establish notability. You also appear to suggest that editors claim the sources are not reliable - again I believe that demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding (on your part) on what the intention of the criteria for establishing notability says and what editors who are following those guidelines are saying. None, as far as I can tell, are saying that the sources are not reliable. What is being said is that an article based extensively on a company announcement or press release is considered to fail the criteria for establishing notability, regardless of whether it is published in a reliable secondary source with no corporate connection with the topic company. None of the references produced meet the criteria, the references fail
WP:CORPDEPTH and/or (more often) fail
WP:ORGIND. Topic therefore fails GNG and
WP:NCORP HighKing++ 10:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Which basically proves my point. "Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH /
WP:ORGIND /
WP:NCORP /
WP:GNG" is the most standard !vote in such AFDs and rarely really fits.
WP:GNG says [i]f a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list and all three requirements are fulfilled here:
Even you agree that the sources are reliable, so that is not problematic.
Per GNG's definition, "significant coverage" is all coverage where the topic is directly covered in detail. That's the case for example with
[12][13][14][15] and others.
So at least some of the sources are suffient to establish notability per GNG which is why while I'm always happy to discuss such issues rationally, I fail to see how GNG is not met in this case. On a side note, you also failed to answer the question why
WP:ATD is not preferable even if you were right. Regards
SoWhy11:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Minor correction: Re "None, as far as I can tell, are saying that the sources are not reliable", The Daily Mail is unreliable as a source for anything -- see
WP:DAILYMAIL, and Drapers Online is not reliable for establishing notability, because they will gladly cover any company in the fashion business, no matter how obscure. Yet these were touted as evidence of notability in the first AfD and nobody bothered to check them. That's reason enough to post a new AfD in my opinion. --
Guy Macon (
talk)
16:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment are we done here? This looks like a remarkably short-sighted nomination, especially given that the last AFD was concluded less than three weeks ago. I'm shocked that the nominator is a member of Arbcom, I had expected these elected individuals to know better than to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
20:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The last AFD was concluded less than three weeks ago with very little evidence of notability. While the consensus is clearly to keep, the evidence is still marginal. --
Guy Macon (
talk)
01:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Notable as a recipient of his nation's highest level award, the title Hero of the Soviet Union, regardless of the amount of propaganda in these sources. The propaganda issue can be fixed by attributing the potentially controversial statements.
Kges1901 (
talk)
21:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article written like an advertisement; company not notable, originating author blocked for sockpuppetry and undisclosed payments.
BrxBrx(
talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})17:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
delete I just did what i could try to make this into an article, but there is surprisingly little solid reporting about this company and its business. Given the promotional pressure and the blatant stock-flogging, delete this.
Jytdog (
talk)
04:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Note: I have no opinion, but the link cited by Andy Dingley above contains the text "Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting." --
Jayron3217:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
No, it's a CSD reason, or at least a snow delete. But Jayron is keen to keep it, so he removed the speedy. If AIRCRASH can't be applied here, then that's at variance to the rest of all the deleted aircrash articles, even those with multiple fatalities, where it is seemingly inevitable.
He removed a CSD tag that had an invalid rationale. That doesn't mean he'd vote keep. Frankly you're attitude here is making it less likely that I'd vote delete, and I'm the one who tagged the article for notability. Pick an actual deletion rationale or I'll say it should be kept. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
18:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak delete per
WP:TOOSOON. A similar incident to
Air France Flight 66, but this isn't an
WP:OSE argument: the coverage of that flight extended into the weeks. I think it's likely notable if the news coverage is durational, but we don't know that yet. By the time this AfD closes, it may well be notable. Not a great article at the moment, but not as obvious a delete as the nominator seems to believe it is on WP:N grounds.
SportingFlyer (
talk)
18:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Air France Flight 66 is a weak case for notability and probably wouldn't survive AfD. Nor would
Qantas Flight 32. However they were also
uncontained engine failures, something which is just not supposed to happen, especially not on such a new aircraft type. So they have a reasonable claim for notability, for their technical aspects, rather than their newsworthiness. This event though - despite being described in the article as an
uncontained engine failure (it isn't), and added to that article (it isn't) - this event was nothing like so serious.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
18:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The distinction between the seriousness of an uncontained engine failure vs. a near complete mid-flight removal of the engine cowling seems like an arbitrary one, especially when we have no credible accident investigators or aircraft engineers publicly stating that this incident was in fact "not serious" (and, again, many significant secondary sources do seem to have decided that it was significant, and will most likely do followup stories as details emerge). --
Eherot (
talk)
18:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Err..... No. Serious difference. You don't need the cowlings to fly. More importantly, a cowling falling off doesn't have the energy to seriously damage the main structure of the aircraft. A rotating engine core very much does - which is why it's kept inside an armoured bucket. If that bucket fails to do its job, that's very serious.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
18:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
There's been extensive coverage over months of both Air France 66 and Qantas 32, and Qantas 32 survived an AfD right after the incident. I don't think we'll get here with this one - I think it'll go away after the news cycle. If this sticks in the news coverage, I'd change my vote. Notability doesn't have anything to do with what separates from what part of the aircraft.
SportingFlyer (
talk)
19:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep - Everything cited here as a reason for deletion suggests that notability is strongly related to the number of secondary sources covering the issue and how long it is expected to remain in the news. Currently Google turns up over 2,600 news-related hits for this incident and the NYT has deigned to grant it multiple days of coverage on their front page. What's more: This article is almost certain to receive future front-page coverage in multiple global news sources as new details emerge. I and many others prefer to go to Wikipedia for these details because it is less likely to parrot unconfirmed speculation. Lastly, there are few examples of major engine malfunctions (where parts fell off of the airplane in mid flight) on large, commercial airliners where the incident did not turn out to have historical significance with ultimately thousands of people seeking to read the associated Wikipedia entry. --
Eherot (
talk)
18:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep - The article clearly satisfies
WP:GNG. It states that 'if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list', this itself is a reason to keep the page. Moreover, the given sources have exclusive articles on the incident which clearly states that it is a popular aviation accident and is investigates by FAA and NTSB.
AyaanLamar (
talk)
18:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - the article has no established lasting impact, and the current wave of coverage by reliable sources can be attributed to the fact that this is a news story now. However, per
WP:NOTNEWS and
WP:RECENTISM, this is not grounds for the maintenance of an article. It is also worth noting that whatever momentary coverage of the crash does exist is only a result of the fact that it occurred in the United States. It can not be stated at this point that this incident has any lasting historical significance (to do so would violate
WP:CRYSTAL in my view), and as such this non-fatal incident derives no lasting notability, and thereby fails
WP:GNG.
Stormy clouds (
talk)
19:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Shouldn't we Keep it per WP:AIRCRASH? This article clearly meets WP:AIRCRASH as follows : Principle 2 : Significant / lasting interest or impact (that is WP:CRYSTAL but so is everything recent on WP). Criteria A4 : Resulting in Break in the normal operation of airline and airport. 5. Suspension - Part of the airline's fleet were stopped.
AyaanLamar (
talk)
20:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
WP:AIRCRASH does not allow for article creation, as stated by
A lad insane, and as the statement of a WikiProject does not usurp fundamental Wikipedia rules like
WP:GNG and
WP:NOTNEWS. Moreover, per those self-same guidelines,
it only provides notability for aircraft which resulted in fatalities (no), hull loss or significant damage (no), or major changes to procedure for airlines (per
WP:CRYSTAL, no). Therefore, it does not state that this incident is notable in any way.
Stormy clouds (
talk)
23:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Do any of you actually read the alphabet soup you cite, or do I have to directly quote it a second time for greater effect. Let me save you the trouble "Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting." --
Jayron3202:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Jayron32:WP:AIRCRASH does not allow for article creation - both A lad insane and I explicitly mention that WP:AIRCRASH is not permissible here, despite the intention of some to apply it erroneously when it does not even bolster their point. Thanks for the reiteration.
Stormy clouds (
talk)
10:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete not notable. No one died, no one was injured and the plane landed normally. The only effect this had was to scare the crap out of a few people on the plane. That shouldn't have happened, but it's United Airlines, what less do we expect it's not bad enough. Maybe if the engine actually dismantled, but this was only the casing. Not the whole thing.
-A lad insane(Channel 2)21:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
DeleteWP:NOTNEWS,
WP:GNG and fails to meet criteria suggested in
WP:AIRCRASH (a very sensible attempt to lay down criteria for aircraft accident articles). A non-notable incident promoted by the "we must have articles on absolutely everything" brigade. This incident would, however, warrant entries in relevant lists and aircraft articles.--
Petebutt (
talk)
11:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
If the decision is to keep (which I doubt, after reading the above statements), then the article needs to be seriously re-written. Poor English used all over.
Dannythewikiman (
talk)
15:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
delete A single day news item which is unlikely to generate ongoing coverage, but at any rate, it hasn't generated on going coverage yet. We clearly lack the will to speedy these things, so there is always going to be a race to put every incident from the day's news in an article, and thus there will always be these really quite unnecessary deletion discussions if
WP:NOTNEWS were to be taken seriously. Too many people can't figure out that "I get Ghits on news articles for something that happened yesterday" isn't good enough.
Mangoe (
talk)
16:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The
relevant section in the UA article should only list notable accidents and incidents - I didn't bother to check all the links to see if any of them are redirects to list articles, but the few I did check weren't. UA (the airline and the article) is simply too big to mention every single incident, and there's no standalone article on them, so there isn't really a good merge target.
ansh66623:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Reply - There is nothing notable here to merge into the airline's history section or anywhere else. It just isn't notable. Minor damage to an aircraft, it is probably already fixed and flying again. -
Ahunt (
talk)
16:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete I can't see how the events in this article get anywhere even close to -
WP:EVENTCRITERIA which says "A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)".
Andrewgprout (
talk)
18:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete As many have stated above
WP:NOTNEWS applies here. While this type of failure is comparatively rare, the majority of the secondary sources don't provide a whole lot of info that would satisfy
WP:GNG apart from stating it happened and passengers were scared. MSM have a habit of sensationalising anything to do with air travel, and the 24 hour news cycle means there will always be a lot of coverage, especially when there is visible damage/passengers with mobile phone videos. In the absence of significant damage to the aircraft structure, such as in
Qantas Flight 32 or even
Southwest Airlines Flight 3472 it appears to have been a fairly straightforward engine failure and I could argue
WP:MILL applies here too.
Dfadden (
talk)
08:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - I don't feel like voting at the moment. However, I shall say that, at least, we have a
Wikinews article covering this subject. If the Wikipedia counterpart doesn't survive, at least we have Wikinews.
George Ho (
talk)
06:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)reply
It's hard to source "missing a fan blade" as there are any number of vague handwaves at this, without any real source.
It does seem that a blade was lost. I've seen one tweet with one photo, which may be of this incident.
[17]
Questions still remain:
Did the engine shed a blade, fail to contain it, and then strip the nacelle as a result? That is serious - an uncontained failure, and as per the A380 incidents I'd support keeping it. But it needs real sourcing.
Did the cowling (or a birdstrike) get ingested, damage a blade, and then the engine contain the bits, as it's designed to do. That's nothing like as serious.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
11:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep It is of marginal notability; succeeds primarily on moderate depth of coverage in RS. In-flight separation of a major engine part--or any important airplane part--that results in significant in-flight bumpiness is not Run of the Mill and not Routine. By definition, it was News, but that's not an automatic disqualifier. I recommend keep as a service to readers who are interested in airliner incidents, particularly one that resulted in unique and frightening in-flight images.
DonFB (
talk)
05:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not yet notable per
WP:BAND. The article is mostly sourced by music blogs and social media, and I don't see significant coverage of them online in
WP: Reliable sources. There is
this profile in an online magazine which
claims 8 million monthly visitors, but that's all I can find online. There's a lot of unsourced and poorly sourced info about them, suggesting
WP:COI, though that can be fixed. They've done well on Spotify, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're highly successful in a few years, but for now this is
WP:TOOSOON.
The Mighty Glen (
talk)
17:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Band has quite a lot of coverage across the board. If Wikipedia is going to be Time Magazine and New York Times only, we're going to have to delete a whole lot of articles. Definitely not too soon as this band has been in existence for 3 solid years and is making constant progress, as noted within the references. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Egrant1102 (
talk •
contribs)
02:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Album with no credible claim to passing
WP:NALBUMS. As always, albums are not automatically entitled to have standalone Wikipedia articles just because the band that recorded them has one, or even just because it's technically possible to
verify the track listing. To qualify for its own article separately from just having its name mentioned in the band's discography, an album has to have verified Nielsen Soundscan chart placements, Juno Award nominations, or at the very least enough
reliable source attention (e.g. reviews by professional music critics in real newspapers or music magazines) to clear
WP:GNG. But there's no evidence of any of that here -- this states nothing about the album that would constitute an actual notability claim at all, and cites no references.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment. One potential source is a couple of substantial paragraphs about the album in the book Have Not Been the Same[18], which is also cited in the main article about the band. I haven't found anything else yet. As Bearcat says, some substantial reliable-source reviews or other coverage would be helpful. --
Arxiloxos (
talk)
18:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm Simon Goodchild, the original creator of the page, and I support the need to delete it as it doesn't really add any value, and can appear as an advert. Therefore, I vote for deletion.
Simon.goodchild17:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A list of codeshare destinations is not an encyclopedic topic. The
Flybe article already identifies the codeshare partners. This article adds nothing to understanding of
Flybe.
Rhadow (
talk)
15:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete this article is
WP:NOTDIR; codeshares aren't operated by the primary airline and do nothing to help understand the core topic. Side note: this AfD has nothing to do with the DRV in my opinion.
Garretka (
talk)
20:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Also to add, the airlines themselves on the page host a small table with this information on their own articles, making this article redundant.
Garretka (
talk)
14:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This unreferenced article gives no indication that
Bulgarian Air Charter has ever flown to the destinations in the list. As a charter operator, any customer with a passenger list and a bank account can organize a trip anywhere within range of an A320.
Rhadow (
talk)
15:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm generally in favor of retaining lists of airline destinations, but since this airline does not offer regularly scheduled service, this particular list should go. Some of these flights may have only took place once. BillHPike (
talk,
contribs)
03:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: That's inexcusable and uncalled for in fact, I find the accusation that an editor created an AfD for an article and discussed, "List items do not pass
WP:GNG other than the
Big Six (ice hockey) teams". You think this list about nicknames (or lack thereof) of
national ice hockey teams failing both
WP:LISTN and
WP:GNG? The problem is some national ice hockey teams do not have any nicknames!
AaronWikia (
talk)
22:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The subject does not pass
WP:ANYBIO and
WP:GNG Majority of the listed references simply fail. References from YouTube, DAWN, The News are self-written and are not independent. Other listed references do not tell anything about the subject.
M A A Z T A L K 15:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Indeed, the inclusion criteria here are somewhere between indiscriminate and entirely nonexistent — many of the entries here are not actually television channels with worldwide distribution, but are multinational media companies which operate different channels in different countries (Sky Italia is not, frex, the same channel as Sky UK just because they're both owned by Sky plc), while others broadcast terrestrially only in one country and then use internet streaming to reach the rest of the world. And if that latter was an inclusion criteria, then in 2018 almost every television channel that exists at all would belong in this list. It's basically just pointless.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Completing nomination on behalf of an anonymous editor, who provided no rationale. The article itself has no sources, and indeed no defined topic - it's not about a specific Torcadero, or a specific use of the name. This article was forked in 2007, as a result of
Trocadero becoming a disambiguation page. The origins of the name are discussed at
Trocadero, however, which makes this non-specific article redundant. The only incoming link to this article is from that disamb page. Based on all that, I believe this can be deleted without the loss of any information.
UltraExactZZSaid~
Did14:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per nomination. It's hard to imagine that this would be the page where any reader would go for this information, as the
Trocadero page is the obvious choice. I created this page in 2007, just to unburden the dab page, and it seems superfluous now.
Christhe spelleryack14:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm the nominating IP. Wikipedia did not allowed me to continue with the process by creating this page, so I just went away. I suggest you fix the process. -
91.10.6.125 (
talk)
00:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
It has been a longstanding practice not to let anonymous editors create pages. This is meant for articles, because it is easy to create a massive number of articles very rapidly, and that could be abused. But it also extends to project pages like this one. That is why we have systems like
WP:BADAFD, which flags AFDs that haven't been completed yet. Most of those are like yours. So I and others will complete them for you, or ask for your reasoning and do it that way. I understand that it's inconvenient, but the alternative isn't really an option. Thanks for nominating this article.
UltraExactZZSaid~
Did13:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Author removed much of the opinion attributed to Gartner. They did coin the term and the definition, and are often thought of as a neutral, credible source, but the focus should be on research and development across the industry. The term is no less notable at this point than other related terms like
Software Defined Networking, or
IT network assurance and many others. Virtually every IT networking vendor in the industry has gotten behind this technology with plans to develop solutions as documented in the article.
Gkinghorn (
talk)
16:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect per the two votes above me. There's nothing in the articles showing independent notability for any of these Stagecoach routes. Better off in a list and would support a bulk AfD/redirect for the remaining articles.
SportingFlyer (
talk)
18:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - Non notable bus route, Pointless redirecting as no one is going to search "Stagecoach Gold bus route S9", Having this as a redirect just sets the precedent that the rest of the bus routes can be created as redirects..... I know REDIRECTSARECHEAP and all that but this isn't cheap ... it's just pointless. –
Davey2010Talk18:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment I am the creator of these articles, and whilst I do agree with some of the above comments, the
Stagecoach Gold article is becoming far too cluttered. With more and more routes being added to the brand, the main article will continue to look more and more untidy. I created these articles with the aim of changing the Stagecoach Gold article sections to tables containing only basic information and then having standalone articles for each route which would contain additional information such as history etc. I admit that this specific route isn't notable, but you could then argue that most of the London buses routes that have their own articles are the same. There is a lot of information in the article that would not be suitable to cascade into the Stagecoach Gold article as the article is in need of cleanup and has been since April 2016.
Commyguy (
talk)
19:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Most bus routes are non notable and this is no exception. The only references are primary sources from Stagecoach and some bus fansite.
Ajf773 (
talk)
06:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: Lacks in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and I don't see if the subject has played a significant/major role in films listed in the article.
GSS (
talk|
c|
em)
13:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete and consider Salt. These types of fanpages are becoming more of a problem on WP. They're generally people that are "known" in some sense by a fanbase (like an obscure actress in this case), but that clearly fall short of our notability guidelines (like having only 1 local news article as a source). This article was recreated once and probably will be again.
Agricola44 (
talk)
14:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy keep, clearly a notable organisation, plenty of
WP:RS both in the article and online in English and Russian. Article was nominated for deletion by a single-edit
WP:SPA on the vaguest rationale possible, and clearly
WP:BEFORE bothering to discuss on its talk page and attempting to improve it.
The Mighty Glen (
talk)
12:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article, unreferenced since it was created in 2006, purports to describe the destinations of six unidentified airlines (FAA certificate holders) that operate(d) under the American Eagle logo. Without reliable references, the article is original research.
Rhadow (
talk)
10:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. References that meet WP:N are easily found for these types of articles. The fact it's currently a poorly referenced article doesn't make it original research.
SportingFlyer (
talk)
18:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - per SportingFlyer. What the nom needs to understand is WP:N requires the existence of references, not if they're already placed in the article by the time a specific editor happens on it. --
Oakshade (
talk)
05:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - where are these references that can easily be found? Could someone demonstrate that indeed these references exist? AA.com does not seem to provide this information, as it only indicates the operating airline, but not the airline brand.
2A02:A451:8B2D:1:DC4F:C0B9:9118:72A7 (
talk)
20:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
If you google "American Eagle" and or "Envoy" and the name of the destination, several news articles invariably come up. For instance, for showing at least former service to two destinations:
[21][22]SportingFlyer (
talk)
20:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
And? How does help us source an article that is meant to comprehensively cover all of American Eagle's destinations? The article name is "American Eagle Airlines destinations" not "Some of American Eagle Airlines destinations".
2A02:A451:8B2D:1:DC4F:C0B9:9118:72A7 (
talk)
21:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
It shouldn't be difficult to understand: We need one or more reliable sources that show that the airline flies or has flown to the places in the list, and that the list is complete and comprehensive. In other words, how can we know that this article includes all American Eagle destinations?
2A02:A451:8B2D:1:DC4F:C0B9:9118:72A7 (
talk)
21:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Or in the alternative, that the airline no longer flies there ... and I won't accept an assertion that, because a particular location is no longer on the subject's website, that it had and terminated service.Rhadow (
talk)
23:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
That's fine. No one is arguing that point. The information is available elsewhere anyways and needs to be in order to pass notability, such as newspaper articles or former route maps. Some of these articles are poorly referenced, but a poorly referenced article shouldn't be deleted because it's poorly referenced: a poorly referenced article should be deleted only if there are no references available to source it. In any case, a larger AfD/DRV/policy discussion about lists of destinations is currently ongoing, you know this, and picking one particular article to try the "original research" AfD debate on at this moment isn't helpful in the least, especially since reliable published sources exist, whether they be articles talking about the closing of a route or old maps or diagrams.
SportingFlyer (
talk)
00:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
No, it is not fine. You claim that references are easily found, but fail to find any. This is also unrelated to the ongoing discussion on airline destination articles. This is a special situation we have here - an airline brand, not an operating airline. With List of Lufthansa/KLM/Emirates airlines there is no question about references, we just use the airline webpage/schedules. There is no such webpage or schedule for American Eagle, so you have to demonstrate that these references exist somewhere else. Please show us these "easily found references". I would be happy to change to keep if evidence is shown that this article can be properly sourced, now or at some undetermined point in the future.
2A02:A451:8B2D:1:6C89:7DBA:DD79:C2A1 (
talk)
08:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Hello
2A02:A451:8B2D:1:6C89:7DBA:DD79:C2A1 -- Thie issue is more fundamental than Eagle's peculiar circumstance.
SportingFlyer is arguing for a different standard to be applied to 2006 vintage articles than to one created today.
American Eagle destinations has a grandfathered claim to notability because of the possibility that references may be found. The same article today would fail review and never make it to the mainspace. The same is true for photography definitions, train stations, and a host of special interest articles. PROD any of them or take them to AfD. Gallons of virtual ink will be spilled in their defense with, typically, no improvement. Since this particular discussion started, Portland, ME and Lansing, MI have references. Pointe a Pitre has fallen into doubt.
Rhadow (
talk)
Please don't put words in my mouth. I am not saying anything other than this article should not be deleted, since numerous sources exist showing the article is notable. I added those two references in about three minutes, by the way. I'm not going to waste my time referencing an article in an AfD discussion. Finally, Pointe a Pitre is not in doubt - the airline flies or has flown there.
SportingFlyer (
talk)
17:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Republic Airline served
Fort-de-France in January 2018. It is not on the February 2018 map. If the standard for the Destination List series is to be serves or served without differentiation, fine. But that's not the way they are formatted. If it takes three minutes to update two destinations, then it will take two and a half hours a month to keep this one article up to date.
Rhadow (
talk)
18:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
It'n not a matter of disliking it. It is a matter of suggesting that it is a waste of time to maintain an article for which the bar has been set unreasonably high. Tell me please which airports American Eagle serves: Dulles or Reagan National ... or Bush Intercontinental or Hobby? These monthly changes of destination are not notable. No newspaper bothers to write that
Fort-de-France was dropped from the schedule. It's simply not notable. It is travel trivia not suitable for an encyclopedia.
Rhadow (
talk)
19:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete- putting aside the question of whether this can be referenced, this still falls under
WP:NOTTRAVEL and
WP:NOTDIR. The article also would have to be updated constantly to maintain accuracy. Just because something can be referenced doesn't mean its worthy of being included.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
19:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
1. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. If someone is planning a trip they can look on the airline's website to see where they travel, it is not of enecylopedic value. 2.
WP:NOTDIR is probably the stronger of the two arguements: "Sales catalogues. An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time." (emphasis mine) Yes, airline service is a product, being that almost all the destinations cannot be sourced in independent sources, it is not notable.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
21:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
For
WP:NOTTRAVEL, I don't understand how it applies. These lists show where an airline operates, not how the cities themselves are connected so they serve virtually no purpose in that regard. For "sales catalogue" there is no pricing attached. There certainly are independent, non review, sources out there for the majority of these routes, and that's something that can be worked on. To echo Jetstreamer below, deletion is not cleanup.
Garretka (
talk)
22:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
″Availability″ applies to hotel accomodation, aircraft seats, etc. I don't see airline destination articles including such information, which certainly belongs in Wikivoyage. Neither I see the prices of hotel rooms in hotel articles. Regarding ″prices and productd availabiliy″, they are offered at the corresponding websites, and these websites are included as a field both in airline and hotel infoboxes. Your interpretation of both
WP:NOTRAVEL and
WP:NOTDIR eventually goes against the entire project. --JetstreamerTalk22:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
In the airline industry, availability means seats you can purchase, not the destinations you can reach. It seems to me
WP:NOTDIR and
WP:NOTRAVEL is subject to different interpretations. And following your example, there should't be articles about mayonnaise or beverages just because they can be purchased at supermarkets.--JetstreamerTalk15:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Speedy CloseKeep on this one. While I agree with the Flybe AfD, I would wait until the DRV concludes as this is "essentially the same issue in a different forum" (from
WP:FORUMSHOPPING). Best to wait until conclusion of the DRV. No need to rush into this.
Garretka (
talk)
20:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment This article is not part of the DRV,
WP:FORUMSHOPPING is not a valid point. Besides, the same people arguing that this is forum shopping are the same people insisting that each article must go to AfD before deleting (you can't have it both ways).--
Rusf10 (
talk)
21:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Quote from
WP:FORUMSHOPPING: "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators, or any of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus." The DRV is about whether consensus has been achieved on this broad topic. Once that is decided, then a path forward can be developed. My preference is to AfD individual articles based on notability, but that's a discussion for after the DRV.
Garretka (
talk)
22:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
If one or the articles under deletion review was AfDed again, you would have a point, but this is a different article. Like I said before, you want it both ways. Your preference is to AfD each article, but you don't want that done until a DRV involving different articles is completed.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
23:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The DRV is the first of what could be many batch deletions per the initial VPP discussion and the ANI discussion. This article would get nominated sooner or later. Yes it's a different article, but this is "essentially the same issue". And yes that is correct. Because the current batch deletion has many quality lists contained within it. That DRV will likely end in a deletion or no consensus. Nominating more articles with "essentially the same issue" while there is an ongoing discussion that will have broader implications is again, unhelpful and will not help establish a consensus. Arguments made for and against deletion here will be the exact same as what is going on there. You can argue till the cows come home but this AfD is textbook Forum Shopping because it's essentially the same issue.
Garretka (
talk)
04:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Again, AfD is admittedly your preferred forum for this. You're saying this is forum shopping, but at the same time saying that it actually belongs in this forum. However, what you are actually arguing for is a delay, which makes no sense. The outcome of the DRV doesn't automatically keep or delete this article.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
04:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
You've requested this article be deleted per WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTDIR. Not only does the nominator ask it be AfD'd on original research grounds, the DRV addresses whether these articles violate both of these.
SportingFlyer (
talk)
07:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
It is extremely unhelpful in establishing consensus on all 444 of these pages when there is a discussion that may not involve this page in particular, but involves the subject and will establish a consensus on these pages moving forward. The outcome of the DRV will clear up where the community stands on these articles and again, will create a path forward for the remainder of these articles.
Garretka (
talk)
09:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
It's basic reasoning: If the outcome of the DRV is to endorse the AfD close this paves the way for all airline destination articles to be deleted. On the contrary, if the outcome is to overturn the decision, why all these articles wouldn't be kept?--JetstreamerTalk15:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
So if the outcome of the DRV is endorse, the three of you would allow this article to be automatically deleted? I doubt it. Likewise, if the outcome is overturn, you cannot argue that this page needs to be kept simply because the other ones were. The outcome of the DRV doesn't determine what happens here.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
16:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
If the DRV is endorse it will make it easier to batch AfD articles, (I would still argue based on the notability of the subject at hand, either for or against). If the DRV overturns then it will result in further discussion as to the true meaning of
WP:NOTDIR and
WP:NOTTRAVEL. Both are subject to wide interpretations. This AfD is premature.
Garretka (
talk)
17:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Coment -- The matter at issue in the DRV was whether destination article should exist at all. The matter at issue here is whether an article should remain when five of its purported six subjects are unreferenced, and therefore are not verified. The DRV is not approval of badly referenced articles. No snow here.
Rhadow (
talk)
23:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)reply
There is absolutely no snow here. In fact, to suggest that there is, is unconscionable, there are three keeps and three deletes right now. Like I said before, the result of the DRV involving other articles does not impact the result here.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
23:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Your main arguments at the DRV discussion were
WP:NOTDIR and
WP:NOTRAVEL. These two arguments were used for the original discussion at VP. It should be more than clear that these arguments are now void in view of the outcome of the DRV.--JetstreamerTalk02:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
DRV doesn't determine policy, its simply a place to review if a discussion was closed with the correct procedure. I don't know how you read the DRV outcome and came to the conclusion that
WP:NOTDIR and
WP:NOTRAVEL cannot apply to this particular article.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
03:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Did you read the DRV close? "The primary issue here was that the close basically said, Policy was already established at
a Village Pump / Policy discussion, and that trumps the consensus of the people discussing the issue here at AfD. That concept was soundly rejected in this review."
Keep Just in case it wasn't clear from my earlier comment, this is flagrant fotum shopping. Consensus is that these articles are notable. The DRV made that abundantly clear. It also made it clear that the reasoning stated in nomination does not apply to this kind of article, nor does the VPP discussion override conensus. Finally, AFD is not cleanup. Enough already.
Smartyllama (
talk)
13:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. I think the consensus of earlier discussions especially the DRV is clear that these articles are justified, and this one is as much justified as the others. I'm not going to repeat the arguments, but essentially this is appropriate content for an encyclopedia such as WP. The DRV close is the current general consensus. This was not at least initially my own personal view on what we ought to be doing, but my opinion is now different: arguments in the prior discussions have convinced me. But whether or not they would have convinced me, I respect the general idea that we to some extent should defer to those who want to include certain general classes of content, in the understanding they will treat our own similarly. The principle of a joint project is to tolerate each other. DGG (
talk )
06:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - That the article should exist is not in question. It still needs references for Compass and Mesa. That the concept of the article was approved by DRV does not excuse it from
WP:V.
Rhadow (
talk)
11:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep the company has received significant coverage in third party sources and it meets
WP:NORG. Content was likely written by an undisclosed COI editor and needs to be toned down to maintain a neutral tone however.
Cait.123 (
talk)
17:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Could you please provide some instances where the coverage is not sourced to the company itself (like interviews or viewpoints form Company officials). A
WP:BEFORE could not find anything. --Hagennos❯❯❯Talk05:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to
Gordon Food Service. There are some arguments for a merge, but it doesn't sound like there's actually anything to merge, so that sounds like a redirect to me. The history will still be there, so if anybody wants to salvage anything to merge, go for it. --
RoySmith(talk)02:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)reply
This prose is close to unreadable. In normal cases, could argue that the prose is worth fixing as the subject is worth keeping, but this article makes no useful distinction between GFS Canada and Gordon Food Service--and neither does GFS, if its website is any guide. So existing Gordon Food Service article should suffice.
Doprendek (
talk)
01:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Subject does not appear to meet either
WP:BASIC or
WP:PORNBIO criteria; no in-depth coverage found, only a brief appearance in the news for being a witness at a murder trial, along with the resulting sensationalistic "true crime" coverage. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk)
09:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
That point was raised before, and the consensus (which I'm not fond of, and didn't support) was that the source accurately repeated the information given in the magazine itself. If I remember right, somebody even spot-checked it. It's like IMDB -- generally not acceptable as a source, but accepted for noncontroversial replication of information published elsewhere, like standard cast lists, but hard to find stable online citations for. (It also prevented people from linking to copyvio pages hosting centerfold and "Playmate Data Sheet" pages). If you want to change the cites to the actual magazine pages, be my guest -- I have better things to do.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (
talk)
14:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
fails
WP:NMUSIC and
WP:GNG. None of the sources support notability. 1 is a user generated content social media site, 2 is a whats on post that just mentions that he palyed a set in a bar in Atlanta, 3 is user generated content, 4 is an ad for an event 5 is also an ad for an event, 6 is his linkedin page, and 7 ...I don't know how to describe this poorly written source but it most definately doesn't look reliable
Dom from Paris (
talk)
17:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article does not clearly establish notability -- minor baseball prospect who has not been active in the sport for close to two years. Sourcing is weak and article is largely a compendium of trivia. Article has been proposed for merger into
Washington Nationals minor league players for more than six months without action; it is a poor fit for said article because of the subject's inactivity and uncertain contract status.
Kudzu1 (
talk)
08:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete I agree with the above. Merge discussions rarely go anywhere, I probably should've merged it myself instead of tagging it. There's no benefit to the project in keeping this. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
18:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep, he satisfies the requirement of
WP:MUSICBIO, section 10 "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.". He composed the Ellen Degeneres show, which is verified on the IMDB page
Cait.123 (
talk)
18:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak keep - this source [
[26]] affirms the Ellen score info, and that he composed the closing credits theme for the Tom Cruise film
Valkyrie. Some other minor coverage here [
[27]]. It turns out that he also helped with the theme for the current Will and Grace reboot [
[28]], with his musical writing partner, who is cast member Sean Haye's husband. [
[29]] He also released an album and performs with the Kaleidoscope Chamber Orchestra. [
[30]] I think there's just enough there.
TimTempleton(talk)(cont)04:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The nominator said this was created by a
WP:SPA, but if you look at the editor's history you'll see over 1,000 subsequent edits. This article was created almost 10 years ago. Something's not right.
TimTempleton(talk)(cont)04:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails GNG and
WP:NSOLDIER. Also possible WP:HOAXunintentional creation of a composite person consisting of two (edit - or more) unrelated people.
Subject has a one paragraph mention in one book, simply noting his promotion. He has a relatively incidental mention in a second book. A third book contains, literally, one sentence (and this may not even be about the same Murray Hoag). A BEFORE fails to find sufficient additional references to sustain this as a standalone article. In "further reading" there are several paper letters mentioned which, I guess, the article's author must have in his/her possession, however, emails, message board comments, and postal letters don't generally held establish notability or meet
WP:RS standards. We don't even have his first name or DOB.
It also invokes a reference
[31] to a completely different person named Hoag that doesn't mention the subject of this article at all. (I'm also not entirely convinced the man in Iowa who raises Shetland ponies isn't even a third different person, possibly a son.) Ergo, this may also qualify for deletion under
WP:HOAX as a composite character of several different people and not a single biological person.
Chetsford (
talk)
00:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Discussion of identity of individual
Question Are you discounting the entire Georgia Historical Quarterly article? That's not multiple RSs in and of itself, but it looks like a very good start. Clearly NOT a hoax - I suggest retracting that part of the nomination. LadyofShalott01:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I am. After reading the article it's about Hettie Sabattie, a teacher at an African-American school, and analyzes her through the context of Hoag's letters as that was the side of the correspondence preserved. There are three short sentences of biographical information on Hoag in the 15 page article and the article is really about Sabattie. Hettie Sabattie would certainly pass GNG, but Hoag - unfortunately - does not.
"Clearly NOT a hoax - I suggest retracting that part of the nomination." None of the sources connect the Murray Hoag who raised ponies in Iowa in the 1890s with the Murray Hoag who fought in the American Civil War. If we can find one source that bridged the gap that would resolve my concerns about this being a composite character, however, we don't currently seem to have that. (To clarify, I'm not saying this is an intentional hoax, however.)
Chetsford (
talk)
01:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I would not be surprised that those are different people. To me hoax implies malice. Though you say that is not what you mean, I would use an entirely different term for an error than deliberate mistruth. LadyofShalott01:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Update - I've now confirmed these are two different Hoags. Per the U.S. National Park Service soldiers and sailors search
[32], a J. Murray Hoag (the pony breeder; b. 1843, d. 1917) served in the 9th Regiment, New York Heavy Artillery during the Civil War. A different J. Murray Hoag (the subject of this article) served in the 4th Regiment, United States Colored Infantry during the Civil War. So, as it currently stands, this biography is a composite of two entirely different people. I'm certain the Quaker connection is yet a third person in this composite character, however, I can't confirm that with 100% veracity yet through RS; will update as soon as I have.
Chetsford (
talk)
01:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Based on your findings about the two different men, I have gone ahead and removed the part about the pony breeder from the article. LadyofShalott02:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Yeah, a Quaker serving as an infantry officer in the Civil War would probably - by itself - pass GNG. I'm not sure we have any examples of that happening. Actually, not to add to the confusion, but it appears there may be a fourth person composited into this article. It appears there two were J. Murray Hoags at the Freedman's Bureau; I'm just working to verify that point with RS as well, and will update again, shortly. (Though it looks like the composite character is being introduced into new articles
[33], so I may have my thumb in the proverbial dyke on this one.)
Chetsford (
talk)
02:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Looks like one person to me. Served in the New York artillery and then captained 4th colored. Is such a tranfer not possible? If there were two J.M. Hoag's one may habe died in 1864 and been buried at Andersonville.
Why can't the J. Murray Hoag who survived the war have served in various roles in the Freedmen's Bureau and then retired to photography and / or pony raising in the Midwest with his family? Regardless, the officer role commanding colored troops and then leading Freedmen Bureau activities in Savannah area and perhaps elsewhere are certainly notable. Saving Savannah has pages and pages indexed to this dude. Plus all the historical letters and other coverage.
FloridaArmy (
talk)
03:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
First, the fact that you, as the article's author, are having to ask these questions - that this "dude" [sic] has so little notability we're not even sure of these basic biographical details - probably demonstrates this is an appropriate article for deletion. Second, aside from the fact that transferring from a New York artillery regiment to a Maryland infantry regiment (the 4th Colored Infantry) would have been highly unusual, there's also the fact the Maryland militia roster shows him serving in it 1863-1867
[34], the same time period the other Hoag was serving in New York. Third, as previously noted, he was not a Quaker minister. (In general, Quaker ministers didn't serve as combat infantry officers during the Civil War but - more specifically - this one specifically didn't as demonstrated by the source.) As previously explained, this is not an article on a real person, it is a composite character of between two to four different people who share the very common surname "Hoag". WP biographies, as a general rule, need to be about real people.
Chetsford (
talk)
04:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
It's not surprising at all. It's a Quaker family so while anti-slavery and Republican sentiments ran strong, military service was somewhat controversial, especially for a family of Quaker ministers. But you seem very confused. This individual was never as far as I can tell a minister. But if you want a connection between the small town in Iowa and his war service
here you go.
Joseph Hoag's grandson and Lindley Murray Hoag's son. For some reason he was buried as Joseph Lindley Hoag instead of Joseph Murray Hoag, I'm not sure why. Perhaps to honor his father? Did you know his father's brother, Murray Hoag, died very young? Yes, It's all a bit confusing because of the Quaker prophet names running in the family. But all it took was a bit of time to sort it all out. It's the same dude. I'm sure your apology will be forthcoming. And as far as the links you've put up I can't find anything at all relevant in them. In contrast I've established exactly who this guy was an who his family were. The notice of his mustering out is online as his appointment to Freedmen's bureau on the front page of a contemporary newspaper account. Clearly notable.
FloridaArmy (
talk)
05:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Huh? What does that prove? The J. Murray Hoag of New York, later of Iowa, belonged to the
Grand Army of the Republic. I'm sure he did, since he was a veteran. I'm sure the other Murray Hoag - the subject of this article from Maryland - did as well. I'm sorry you're upset but I don't really know how better to explain this to you: this article is a composite character of two to four different people.
Chetsford (
talk)
05:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete as per Chetsford, seems like a composite of multiple people, serving both in New York and Maryland doesn't make any sense. This is a mess, without even dealing with the question of notability, the article cannot be kept. In order to have an article, we need sources that make it clear who the person was and where they lived.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
05:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
CommentHere's the officer Hoag mustered out with. He served in an Ohio unit and then was an officer for the 128th colored troop organized in South Carolina. So obvioualy colored troop officers coild be drawn from areas that weren't where the colored troops, freedmen, were from (including areas in the South). Despite Chetsford claims he hasn't shown any evidence there are different people in this article. What are the birth and death dates of these supposed people? Other info loke graves or parents?
FloridaArmy (
talk)
06:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The link you provided doesn't mention the name "Hoag" anywhere in it. What you are doing is analyzing historical texts to find connections that would support a conclusion, which is fine if you're writing a book but on WP is
WP:OR.
Chetsford (
talk)
06:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
No, you said a soldier serving from one state and then being an officer of colored troops from another didn't make any sense. I was showing you're wrong. There is no OR involved. Lots of sources covering his military service and family history. As well as his later career as a druggist and pony breeder in Iowa. Sources on his father and grandfather as well discussing Lindley's move to Iowa. It's all solod stuff. Still waiting for yoi to give dates or family histories for the multiple J. Murray Hoags you claim exist. Nothing but B.S.
FloridaArmy (
talk)
06:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
"It's all solod stuff. Still waiting for yoi to give dates or family histories for the multiple J. Murray Hoags you claim exist. Nothing but B.S." OK, noted.
Chetsford (
talk)
06:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
KeepComment Yuck. I've tried to clean up the article. The connecting tissue comes from his GAR record ("Iowa, Grand Army of the Republic Membership Records, 1861-1949," database with images, FamilySearch (
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q23N-SCTS : 2 June 2016), J Murray Hoag, 1861-1949; citing Iowa, United States, Military Service, State Historical Department, Des Moines; FHL microfilm 1,487,403.). There are two obits in the current article, which do a bit of the work, as well. There is also a picture. A bag of Trouts to FloridaArmy, you can't just make things up and add random stuff and expect editors to understand and clean up your mess. Yes, I agree this individual is suitable for the encyclopedia, but it is important make sure your work is verifiable and as correct as possible - mistakes are ok but not guessing.
Smmurphy(
Talk)07:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
If he was, I don't see it as a notable part of his life. I removed that stuff from the article, it didn't seem clear that it belonged. This article is clearly meant to be about a J. Murray Hoag who was a member of the Freedmen's Bureau. The only such person was John Murray Hoag (1843-1917). Alternative forms of his name include John M. Hoag and J. Murrah Hoag. Lindley Murray Hoag (1808-1880) may be a relative, but I don't see how. Ancestry.com family trees suggest John was the son of Hiram Cook Hoag and Sally Ann Wyman and that Hiram was the son of a Benjamin Jr, none of whom match the Quaker Joseph Hoag (1762-1846) linked to in an earlier version of this page.
Smmurphy(
Talk)07:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
According to your newest source, he was 19 in 1863, making his DOB 1847. You've previously claimed he went by the alias Lindley Hoag and was from a family of famous Quakers
[36]. In that version you cited a source
[37] showing a DOB of 1808. Can you clarify?
Chetsford (
talk)
07:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
19 years old comes, I think, from his enlistment record. That same civilwardata page does give a DOB of 1843, though, matching his tombstone and GAR records.
Smmurphy(
Talk)07:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
OK. So was he born in 1843, 1837, or 1808? Was his name J. Murray or J. Lindley? Are we using RS or are we using Findagrave and ancestry.com?
Chetsford (
talk)
07:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
No one wants to use ancestry.com. The question was if John (1843-1917) was related to any Quakers. I don't know where FloridaArmy got that from, but it isn't in any sources I see on the current or any past versions of the page. Thus, I checked ancestry to see if there was anything that might be in family history or something from which such a connection could be made. I didn't find it there either. I don't know why FloridaArmy made that connection.
Smmurphy(
Talk)07:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't know who Joseph Lindley Hoag (1834-1900) is. Iowa Falls, where he is buried, is a long way from Maquoketa, Los Angeles, or Arlington, though. Also, the civilwardata information includes birth and death dates which match those currently in the article and which are not 1834 and 1900 respectively.
Smmurphy(
Talk)07:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Another person named Hoag. It's a fairly common name which may be the source of your frustration when you created the composite article that merged the Quaker minister Hoag and the Civil War officer Hoag. That's one reason we try to discourage OR. Otherwise our article on
John Jones might claim he was a championship water polo player, instead of
John Jones.
Chetsford (
talk)
07:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
So is this an article about Joseph Lindley Hoag, born 1834 in New Hampshire; Joseph Lindley Murray born 1808 to a Quaker family; or J. Murray Hoag born 1843 who served in the Army in Maryland? We've gone through a few different versions so I just want to make sure I know which we're currently on.
Chetsford (
talk)
07:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Hmmm. But he just - above - left a cryptic note about "Joseph Lindley Hoag" born in 1837 in New Hampshire. I think that may have to do with what he previously included in the article that Hoag was from a family of famous Quakers and used the alias Lindley and was born in 1808 (which would mean he was a championship breeder of Shetland Ponies as a 111 year old man in Iowa). Also, we should probably avoid using Find-A-Grave to source articles as per
Rusf10's comment.
Chetsford (
talk)
07:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I first found Hoag's grave using the find a grave thing-y at the arlington national cemetery website, but that doesn't create a url, so to provide a link I looked for it on find-a-grave. We do, in some instances, consider a grave stone to be a useful primary source. I don't care for the practice but if we really wanted, we could use it here to provide a name for his wife (Caroline).
Smmurphy(
Talk)07:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Per the article, John (1843-1917) married a Belden (happens to be sister of Scott Belden, for whom
Belden, Nebraska is named). John's (1843-1917) tomb also has the name of Caroline Belden Hoag. Caroline is the wife of the John who is the sunject of this article, John (1843-1917).
Smmurphy(
Talk)08:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I think some of this comment repeats my earlier comment, but: John (1843-1917) is buried at Arlington National Cemetery according to his obituary and his GAR record (both linked in the article). You can find an image of his grave on the Arlington National Cemetery website, there is only one John Hoag who died in 1917 when you search for it. The image is the same as the image at findagrave. Looking at the image (the grave is a primary source, if we believe the image is accurate, we can consider it a primary source), John (1843-1917) was buried with a person named Caroline Belden Hoag (1838-1927). The article currently says that John (1843-1917) married a sister to Scott Belden, citing a newspaper article. From this, I conclude that John (1843-1917) was married to a woman named Caroline. I don't think this belongs in the article as while I believe my logic is sound, I don't think it is interesting enough that we should IAR NOR just to add her first name to the article.
Smmurphy(
Talk)08:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't know how the breeder and colored unit commander could be the same person. According to Chetsford " I've now confirmed these are two different Hoags. Per the U.S. National Park Service soldiers and sailors search [2], a J. Murray Hoag (the pony breeder; b. 1843, d. 1917) served in the 9th Regiment, New York Heavy Artillery during the Civil War. A different J. Murray Hoag (the subject of this article) served in the 4th Regiment, United States Colored Infantry during the Civil War. So, as it currently stands, this biography is a composite of two entirely different people." He seemed so sure of himself!!!
FloridaArmy (
talk)
08:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
@
FloridaArmy: I think you have no right to be smug here. Probably none of us do, but you created the mess. Just because I tried to clean it up doesn't mean that Chetsford wasn't trying to clean it up as well. I think you should apologize and strike your comment.
Smmurphy(
Talk)08:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
So it appears I was correct, it was a composite article of J. Murray Hoag (born 1843) and the Quaker John Lindley Hoag (born 1808)
[38]. Now that's settled and Smmurphy has de-composited it by removing the references to separate person J.L. Hoag, we should move forward with a discussion about its suitability under
WP:NSOLDIER. I'm not seeing he meets any of the eight criteria, and the sources contain such incidental mentions that they don't pass GNG.
Chetsford (
talk)
08:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Smmurphy is clearly the hero here, but I am troubled that Chetsford keeps putting out misleading information. Joseph Lindley Hoag (born 1834 and died 1900 OR 1902 depending on source) and John Murray Hoag (born 1843 died 1917) are the people we are differentiating. The sources on the Captain of the colored unit and Freedmen Bureau are abundant. Saving Savannah index shows the book is full of coverage.
FloridaArmy (
talk)
08:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Sorry? You are the one who created a semi-fictional, composite biography by blending in the life history of an entirely different person to create an article that contained bits and pieces of two different people
[39] and - when challenged - then claimed this individual must have been buried under an alias
[40]. But yes,
Smmurphy is owed thanks for undoing that. If you'd like, you can even thank me for also undoing that when you attempted it again
at this other article[41].
Chetsford (
talk)
08:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I think this is hard for other editors to read and am going to format this a bit; add a discussion about identity of individual sub-section head and then a discussion about suitability for encyclopedia subsection head so that this is all easier to read. I'm striking my earlier vote into a !comment and writing a new !vote in the new subsection (still keep but with clearer rational) @
Rusf10: if you think this would be a good idea, could you move you !vote to the new subsection? @
Chetsford: if you think this would be a good idea, feel free to restate your nomination based on the current article either at the very top or the top of the new discussion of suitability of subject in encyclopedia section. If doing so is obviously wrong to someone, feel free to remove my formatting.
Smmurphy(
Talk)15:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment why are people getting worked up about editor errors on an article about a 19th C person? The subject is so old that it errors could be coming from a hundred directions.
104.163.148.25 (
talk)
06:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
It's one thing if errors are introduced by relying on sources presumed to be reliable. It's another thing if they are introduced by sloppy original research. --
Lambiam19:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Discussion of suitability of subject in encyclopedia
Keep - Hoag's role in the civil war received a mention for gallantry, which is provided in numerous listings of such mentions, including Williams 2012. During the war, there were few medals for gallantry other than the Medal of Honor (I don't think he would qualify for the
Butler Medal, for instance). His role in the Freedmen's Bureau in Georgia is given mention, generally passing, in numerous books, including Cimbala 1997, Jones 2009, and Harris and Berry 2014. He is a central character in Cimbala 1997, with mentions on 8 pages in the text and 10 more in the notes. His relationship with black teachers is analysed in Whittington 1991. After leaving the bureau, he moved to Iowa where he became one of the most prominent Shetland pony breeders in the country, operating what was for a time the largest Shetland pony ranch in the country and being president of the main US Shetland pony association. Most of the 308 newspapers.com results for a search for '"J M Hoag" OR "J Murray Hoag"' during his lifetime are really about him and most of those are about his farm career (
https://www.newspapers.com/search/#query=%22j+m+hoag%22+OR+%22j+murray+hoag%22&dr_year=1860-1917). Between the Spanish-American War and World War I, he was an army recruiter in Buffalo, which resulted in his promotion to major and in numerous other mentions in newspapers. When he died, he had obituaries in minor Iowa and New York newspapers that I can find. His GAR record provides a clear thread so that connecting these different phases of his life is not
OR. The article has a variety of sources, so I think it passes
WP:V, and is neutrally written, passing
WP:NPOV. I would suggest that Whittington 1991 and Cimbala 1997 go a long ways towards GNG, with his obituaries contributing to that case as well. His work in Shetland pony breeding in America has a weak claim to ANYBIO#2. He doesn't quite meat SOLDIER, but almost meets #1 and #2 as being mentioned for gallantry was the second highest way of being honored for valor at the time and holding the rank of Major is a significant degree of promotion for someone who enlisted as a private.
Smmurphy(
Talk)15:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - There is sufficient information above and in the article and citations here to convince me that this soldier, politician in the
Freedmen's Bureau, and important pony breeder should be kept in Wikipedia.--
Dthomsen8 (
talk)
21:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Now that the identity of Hoag has been sorted out, the sources demonstrate notabilty per
WP:BASIC particularly with regard to his work at the Freedmen's Bureau. Nice improvements.
24.151.116.12 (
talk)
18:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The only significant sources I could find about this software project was from Hackaday, the rest are mostly forum posts or website profiles. In addition, the article has a promotional tone.
Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew12:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I'd like to provie arguments against Deletion of this article:
It is written by the inventor, but this only contributes to the facts!
HACKADAY is a reliable source, but additionally the project won 3 semifinals! This obviously asserts the notabiliity!
Additionally, this is the FIRST Arduino based, Free and Stand-Alone Telescope controller! No other in the world.
Promotional tone... I'm not sure I understand. It is a free Software and Hardware!
Do you consider that the 3rd party development "pre-built" version does not need to be included ?
The promotional tone, and how-to aspects of the article can be easily edited off, so they are not reasons for deletion. However I can confirm that it only seems to be covered by blogs, social networking sites, and hackaday. I think the topic shoul wait for an appearance in an Astronomy magazine, or a description in a journal.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
22:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I understand! As this is Open Source project, it is not funded and as such is hard to receive a review in Astronomy magazines. However there is one Astronomy magazine - "Sky & Telescope" who agree to post an article on their website, which should happen in the next few weeks (we have completed the article editing and now waiting for the publishing).
Should I go back and create this Wikipedia page after it is published ?
I'm affraid that this project will not gain publicity very fast, but step-by-step we got to 300+ followers and gaining some media attention.
Article you wrote about your product is not "independent reliable source" for Wikipedia". You need third party coverage (eg. review in such magazine by staff member), not paid adverts.
Pavlor (
talk)
09:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I have updated the "pre-built"version and hope it does not sound promotional. In addition I hope to have an article on "Sky&Telescope" magazine's website next week, as it was initially scheduled. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DEsko 76 (
talk •
contribs)
08:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)reply
delete This appears to be pure
WP:PROMO. Wikipedia is not the place to promote products. This has not received any meaningful coverage. Without
WP:RS citations, this simply does not belong. Please note that the single reference you just added does not qualify - it is a blog, and thus not a reliable source.
Tarl N. (
discuss)
16:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Additionally If you try searchig for "Free Telescope Controller", rDUINOScope is the 3rd, 4th result. It has a Website and Facebook page... It is NOT a
WP:PROMO! I don't need to promote this project as there is no financial benefit, not this is a product at all! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DEsko 76 (
talk •
contribs)
16:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can anyone assess whether the
new source passes the article over the bar?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ansh66607:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Sky and Telescope is a reliable source in general, but the article
rDUINOScope Boiana: DIY Go To Unit was written by the creator of rDUINOScope Boiana, so this is not an independent third party source. I don't see any independent reliable sources for this device. I'm not convinced that Hackaday is a reliable source. Without independent reliable sources according to
WP:RS and
WP:GNG, the article fails notability guidelines. Perhaps if and when the device garners in-depth coverage in multiple independent reviews, this could be revisited. It's a cool project. But right now, there just aren't the independent RS to support an article. Hence delete. --
Mark viking (
talk)
19:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete All sources point back to the Law Society, including the fact that they gave him an honorary LLD degree for his work. All in all, no sources demonstrate any kind of notability outside of LSUC.
104.163.148.25 (
talk)
08:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Lawyers, even if they hold an executive position with their jurisdictionally-relevant law society, are not handed an automatic inclusion freebie just because their existence can technically be verified in
primary sources like the websites of their own law firm and the law society itself — like anybody else, they still need to be
reliably sourceable as the subject of media coverage in unaffiliated sources, but there's none of that here.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep all, unless rationale can be provided why Indian cities are less worthy of a category than the other 37 similar lists in the
Category:Lists of songs about a city. FWIW, I'd much rather see a referenced list than a category based on the mention of a city's name, let's be honest, this kind of list is hardly encyclopedic... --
Richhoncho (
talk)
10:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep all I dont understand how such broad rational can be used for what seems like all the cities in South Asia or at least only cities in South Asia. The similar list for
Atlanta has no source and
List of songs about Amsterdam has one source. Yet I didn't see any of them being nominated for deletion in the past. The absence of articles on some songs does not necessarily mean that they are not notable but simply articles have not yet been created and we do know that there is a disparity in Wikipedia. Only nominating lists of cities in South Asia only furthers systemic bias.
Vinegarymass911 (
talk)
16:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep all, the nominator is being discriminiator or somehow biased on keeping articles about
Indian cities, as some editors suggested. There are similar lists about american or australian cities as well. Then why isn't he nominating all those as well here? And, If these have no encyclopedic value I suspect there is no article. At least delete all the other articles appearing in
Lists of songs, if you are neutral.
Makhamakhi (
talk)
19:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I haven't checked as to whether the songs on those other cities are notable, but if found not to be, in time I'll surely nominate those as well. There's no encyclopedic value in such poorly referenced articles which don't suffice notability.
MT TrainDiscuss16:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:LISTN: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational ... purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability". IMO, lists of songs about places serve that purpose. The lists may need pruning so that they only include songs specifically about each city, and the sourcing could be improved, but neither is a reason for deletion.
comment The ten lists under discussion were all created recently and by a single editor,
Makhamakhi, who exhibited a staggering lack of understanding of
WP:N,
WP:V, and
WP:RS (see
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Articles Created by blocked user Makhamakhi for a discussion of whether to nuke the nearly 500 articles they created in the past six weeks). The cities for which they created song lists happen to all be in South Asia. I take the nominator's word that the nominations are based on the lists failing to meeting policies and guidelines rather than on any imagined bias against South Asia, and ask other participants to
WP:AGF in that regard. --
Worldbruce (
talk)
19:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete all--Per nominator.LISTCRUFT by a near-incompetent user.And, I will be genuinely interested if the keep !voters can churn out something other than OSE and misplaced claims of geo-bias.
~ Winged BladesGodric12:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep all. I looked at one of these,
List of songs about Lucknow, in detail. It looks like it meets
WP:LISTN to me. LISTN says, it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Well, we've got a source, 10 Bollywood Songs That Has Captured Lucknow And Its Charm. That sure seems like it meets the LISTN requirement. I only looked at the others more briefly, but at first glance, they seem like they meet LISTN as well. Bundling all of these into a single AfD doesn't help, because perhaps some are notable and some are not. I would suggest keeping them all for now and allowing (
WP:NPASR) people to bring back specific ones that they really feel fail LISTN. That fact that the creator of this lists has subsequently been banned is immaterial. --
RoySmith(talk)00:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)reply
That means that both
List of songs about Delhi and
List of songs about Lucknow have independent sources which relate to those two lists as lists per se. The proposed multiple deletion is therefore unjustified. These lists need to be discussed individually.
Keep all . I think the general view at WP has become that we will keep lists suh as this , regardless of our own personal interests. My own general view is that lists for minor content is a good way of discouraging articles on such content, and is a reasonable compromise in such matters. Compromise is, after all, the only way we can work together. I apply it equally to the fields in which I am interested in, and to the ones in which I have no interest whatsoever. This is not my private WP. DGG (
talk )
06:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep any songs that are notable (i.e. have articles), delete all others. If there are no notable songs left, delete the list. This seems easier than the discussion is making it.
TimTempleton(talk)(cont)18:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Also easy to resolve. If the group of items being listed itself is not notable, the
WP:LISTN threshold is not met. In other words, unless there is media coverage that substantiates that songs about a certain city are notable in the first place, my cull criteria makes the most sense. If a source can be found that states songs about a certain city have particular significance in general, then we could add a preface, referencing the source in question, and then include all the non-notable songs we want, per
WP:LISTN.
TimTempleton(talk)(cont)23:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Although realistically, there will likely be no lists that survive this threshold, but that's the way it should be then. Non-notable songs in non-notable categories don't deserve an article. Taken to the extreme, I could upload to YouTube a video of me singing into my iPhone about my town and then add an article, sourced with the YouTube link, which we don't want.
TimTempleton(talk)(cont)23:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Draft:David Hildebrand (politician) already declined at AfC by myself and
DGG. Draft creator unhappy with the decision based on the conversation on my talk page. Bottom line is the subject of the article is only a candidate and is already listed on the election page in Wikipedia. Unless he wins or can be found to be notable for something else, he fails
WP:BIO.
CNMall41 (
talk)
06:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The subject of the article meets Number 3 of
WP:NPOL: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". He has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.
As stated in
WP:GNG, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Here, the subject has been covered in multiple printed newspapers and online sources, some of which are cited in the article. Coverage is ongoing, becoming more significant daily.
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Here, the sources cited are major news sources, online blogs, and video news programs. There are plenty of them secondary sources, ranging in reliability.
Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. Here, though the article is just a stub. But that does not mean it is not notable. There is more content to be written and more sources available.
I don't know what standards you're using, but the wikipedia standards clearly show you are incorrect in your judgment, and I ask you to fix yourself.
Delete. No candidate in any election ever fails to be the subject of some coverage in the context of the election campaign itself — so that falls under
run of the mill, and is not coverage that can be used to make a candidate pass GNG just because some media coverage exists. If the mere existence of campaign-specific coverage were enough in and of itself to get over GNG, then every candidate in any election would always get over GNG. But our job is to maintain articles about holders of office, not everybody who ever just ran for one — we have an established consensus that Wikipedia is
WP:NOT a repository of campaign brochures for unelected candidates. To make a candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article, you must show one of three things: (1) he's the winner of the Senate election in November, (2) he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before he became a candidate, or (3) his candidacy is getting so much more coverage than most other candidacies are also getting that you could credibly claim his candidacy had already made him nationally famous (the
Christine O'Donnell exception.) Yes, if he actually manages to defeat Dianne Feinstein in the primary, then in all likelihood the coverage of him will expand enough to pass that last condition — but simply being able to show four pieces of campaign-related coverage is not evidence that a candidate has already cleared our notability standards, because every candidate in any election could always show four pieces of campaign-related coverage, and he's also not a special case just because he might defeat Dianne Feinstein in a primary that hasn't happened yet, because
WP:CRYSTAL also applies. If you could show something like Christine O'Donnell's 168 footnoted references, then his candidacy could be considered a special case — but just four doesn't cut it.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Also, candidates can be covered in Wikipedia if they are candidate, but that doesn't mean they qualify for their own page. In this case, he is already listed as a candidate in the
United States Senate election in California, 2018 page. However, he would not qualify for his own page based on the reasons given above by Bearcat. --
CNMall41 (
talk)
20:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I appreciate your response. I do say that it seems that your established consensus seems to be waning:
Danny_TarkanianScott AshjianJohn ChachasWayne_Allyn_RootLarry_ElderRon Unz... I could spend all day finding articles about people who are only on wikipedia because of their runs for office, and unlike with our subject here, written about mainly by themselves. You seem to be doing a few things:
1) Treating all races the same, comparing a race for city council, or representative from Delaware, in the same context as a U.S. Senate race in California.
Even if you come to the same conclusion, you are making an error if you're not using different criteria for one office from the other.
2) Treating sources such as Fox News as more reliable than the Sacramento Bee.
Just look at the 168 footnotes you're citing for
Christine O'Donnell. If you're valuing quantity over quality, there are several dozen blogposts and videos featuring our subject here I could include.
3) Pronouncing a rule of general applicability but only applying it in select cases.
Just because "every" candidate will get some news coverage, does not mean that the news coverage they get should be discounted. If the general rule is that media coverage is a sign of notability, then media coverage is a sign of notability. Applying it differently to one category of people over another is ridiculous. All serial killers will get some media coverage, would you say that their media coverage doesn't count? Rather, the rule should be to judge the reliability of the sources and how much they directly are reporting on the subject - no discount should be given to campaign coverage and the reporting should not be analyzed differently. AND, since your supposed *consensus* to the contrary is being arbitrarily applied depending on the editor and the moment, I don't think it's a rule with much staying power.
@
Jonivy: Your arguments are faulty and I just want you to understand that this isn't a rigged competition. First, please read
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Pointing to other deficient articles isn't a valid argument; it would result in a race to the bottom with our content getting worse due to declining standards. Second, it appears the failed candidates you listed pass
WP:GNG. This subject does not. Per
WP:NPOL, Wikipedia does not have different criteria for different elections. This is a global encyclopedia and it would be impossible to suss those gradations out. Thirdly, per
WP:RS, we don't have a sliding rule on sources. Consensus determines if a source is usable and after that, it's a numbers game.
WP:SPS disallows blogs. Many editors discount coverage from local news sources, especially where the subjects are of purely local interest and are otherwise
run of the mill. I think you also need to read
WP:BIO1E. The consensus determines if a person known for one particular event is otherwise a low-profile individual. Sometimes the crowd here fawns over a
two-minute celebrity because of large volumes of coverage. We don't want to otherwise try to write biographies of an also-ran based upon slim coverage. I understand you're a very inexperienced editor and I know some people take deletion personally. Rather than harbor bitterness over this, please accept that the
notability criteria are something you need to edit inside. None of us likely have animus against Hildebrand; there's just not enough source material for us to feel this encyclopedia should discuss him in a standalone manner. You can always add more content to the article about this race. Chris Troutman (
talk)02:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
You're being capricious and insisting that you're using standards at the same time. You should pick one and stick with it. I could understand if you wanted to say, "Someone running for President and someone running for postal carrier have the same notability from my personal perspective." But if you're going to cite rules, standards, and guides, you should at least find one that backs up what you're saying. I can point to the standards that seem to exist based on the articles that are deleted vs those that are not, and I can point to all of the language written in the
WP:N guidance. Ultimately, wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If you and this brigade wish to do one thing, there is nothing I can do to stop you. I can point to
WP:N guidelines which clearly state that there is a presumption of notability when a subject receives significant coverage from reliable sources, but you are free to ignore those "rules" - after all, they are a reflection of consensus, not a mandate. But I implore you to develop intelligent standards and apply them evenly. If this encyclopedia is to contain information about political races, as it does, then this brigade of censorship is not healthy and does not improve the experience for readers or editors. I've been reading and contributing to wikipedia for 15 years. It is definitely a new-found consensus to attack articles like this simply because the subject is a candidate for an office - handicapping the media coverage, simply because the subject is a political candidate, and making up a new set of rules that say that media coverage doesn't count.
Jon Ivy (
talk)
08:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
A publication like the Sacramento Bee has a duty to provide coverage of all elections of consequence to its readers. Wikipedia has a long standing policy that being a candidate for public office is not a sign of default notability, and so such local coverage is counted as routine. This especially applies to candidates only running in a primary. On the other hand, this does not apply to people who are otherwise notable, which virtually all significant candidates in a presidential primary will be.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
16:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Danny_Tarkanian,
Scott Ashjian,
John Chachas,
Wayne_Allyn_Root,
Larry_Elder and
Ron Unz are not proof that our established consensus about the notability or non-notability of candidates is "waning" — every single one of them actually makes some other claim of notability besides the fact of being a candidate, and every single one of them cites a lot more sources than have been shown here. Whether all of their other notability claims are compelling or well-sourced ones is a different matter that would require detailed review, and perhaps nomination for deletion as well if they're not really cutting it — but none of them are claiming that the subject is notable just for being a candidate in and of itself.
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments are rarely compelling evidence in an AFD discussion — nothing stops anybody from creating an article about anything or anyone whether that topic meets our notability standards or not, but we have to actually notice a bad, improperly sourced article about a non-notable topic before we can do anything about it, and bad articles about non-notable topics do sometimes fly under the radar for a while because the rate at which new articles get created sometimes outpaces our ability to stay on top of getting rid of the bad ones. So the existence of any article about an unsuccessful election candidate is not in and of itself proof that this one has to be kept too — the other person may have a different notability claim besides candidacy alone, or their article may also be deletable and just hadn't gotten caught yet. "Consensus", for AFD purposes, is established by our stated inclusion criteria and actual AFD practice, not by the mere existence of any article that seems to contradict it.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete a candidate for a party nomination. Actually the article is less than clear on his actually filing to run. Short of winning the nomination, he is unlikely to be notable.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
15:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
1) Actually, he's not a candidate for a party nomination. If you were an expert on California elections, like I am, you may know that our primaries are open, and that the top-two vote-getters from June will be on the ballot in November. 2) If you're basing his notability on a reading of the article, then you're suggesting I could edit the article to make him more notable, a suggestion that seems illogical.
Jon Ivy (
talk)
01:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - after all the socking, tantrums and name calling of the recent edit war, nothing has emerged even remotely close to notability. Almost all refs are simple sales listings. The nearest to notability is a blog style post about an interview where the interviewee is a fitness coach. Not quite
WP:GNG. Very evidently a piece of pure promotion with no place on Wikipedia. VelellaVelella Talk 03:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - As noticed by Velella above, see the article's history in which someone called Lisamaymgt has fought pretty hard to keep the article alive with little regard for community collaboration or WP procedures. Meanwhile, the singer herself certainly has a quantity of song listings, stream links, and very brief introductions, but
significant coverage has not happened. Also note that the singer's common name makes searching a bit of a challenge. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)15:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Reference 8 said that he was with the team but I cannot find any source to help figure out whether he had any appearance for the team. --
Lerdsuwa (
talk)
01:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: Couldn't identify any in-depth coverage online (Google results are only reports of team and/or match line-ups). This seems to suggest that the subject fails the GNG, which overrules
WP:NFOOTY, but his career was a decade ago so I'm not exactly sure. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
11:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete -I don't know him and this article edit before 2009, That Thai League wasn't a professional league so I can't find any reference about him what team or stat. In my opinion I think this article doesn't have benefit and not have a reliable source.
Ministerboy (
talk)
12:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not informative and vague. What is "large"? What is the cut-off? Raw data doesn't say anything: Malaysian Chinese are the majority in Perai, with 36,4% of the population; in Batu Pahat Malaysian Chinese are a "significant minority" with 44,7% - what makes up the rest of those places? Merging some statistics to
Malaysian Chinese is the best option.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK12:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep per our
editing policy. The topic is notable as it is covered in detail in sources such as Unsettling Absences: Urbanism in Rural Malaysia and The Management of Secondary Cities in Southeast Asia. Note also that merger precludes deletion per
WP:MAD.
Andrew D. (
talk)
12:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
It appears that Soetermans wants the page improved and/or merged. My point is that these things are not done by deletion.
AFD is not cleanup. Improvements to the page should be discussed on its talk page.
Andrew D. (
talk)
12:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm saying there isn't anything to improve, because it has an ill-defined subject: "List of cities and towns in Malaysia with large Malaysian Chinese populations", which is incoherent and vague. For a third time, what makes something a "large population"? Do you have an answer? Because if we humble Wikipedians would decide what's "large", that would be
WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH or at least
WP:SYNTH. Let's remove the word "large"; should we list all places in Malaysia with any percentage of Malaysian Chinese? That there are places with large populations of Malaysian Chinese can easily be listed in a table at
Malaysian Chinese. And as far as I know from my Wikipedia experience, suggesting a merge as an option is fine in an AfD.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK13:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
You could have an arbitrary cut-off, say with a definition of a majority minority population (see
Majority minority), or you could do a standard 10% or greater with a minimum number of 1,000 people. Or you could work from the top, with the top 50 cities with large Chinese populations (arranged either by proportion of population or by number). Agreed that as it stands it's a little vague.
Stui (
talk)
16:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 05:40, 14 February 2018 Not not(UTC)
Keep. The majority cities are clearly sensible and comprehensive (though population cutoff may be an issue). The large minority cities less so. I'm not sure this is a deletion candidate, but I don't see anything wrong with a Merge either.
SportingFlyer (
talk)
18:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete populations migrate, a list such as this either has to cover the topic in a broad historical framework, and be unreasonably long, or be overly presentist for no good reason.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
15:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
delete. Not a suitable topic for an article. First why single out this demographic, second why these towns – what is "large"? Tried looking at the reference but that is no longer online, and is only available from the wayback machine so unreadable and badly out of date. Might do as a table in e.g.
Malaysian Chinese, properly sourced, but no way needs its own article.--
JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds22:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete as this is a vague representation of population data with an arbitrary selection criteria. It is not useful for the encyclopaedia. An equivalent example would be [List of cities in India with large Bengali population]. But there are many such permutations possible if we replace Bengali by any other ethnicity. How do we select which ethnicity to use? It is enough to keep demographic data of each city/town in its article.--
DreamLinker (
talk)
17:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. At the time I posted my original comment, the article did state that she was a municipal councillor in the city of Salta, rather than a member of the legislature of Salta Province — because the nominator is the one who changed Jorge's notability claim from "member of the provincial legislature" to "deputy municipal councillor in the city" in the process of nominating it. I failed to catch that they had done that at the time, and it was reverted back to the original text after I posted my comment — but I did not misread or misrepresent what the article said at the time, the nominator (who's since been blocked) changed the article to misrepresent her actual notability claim, and it didn't get reverted back until after I commented. The topic here actually was a member of a provincial legislature, however, which is an
WP:NPOL pass — some referencing improvement is definitely needed here, but we do indeed keep articles about provincial or state legislators. And Lonehexagon is also correct that the sources refer to her as Gabriela, not Patricia. Flag for refimprove, and move the article to her
WP:COMMONNAME, but keep.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep She is not a deputy municipal councilor. She is a member of the provincial legislature, which is basically equivalent to being in a state legislature in the United States, and clearly passes notability guidelines. She is "for the provincial capital", in that that is her district, she is not a member of the municipal council but the provincial legislature.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Provincial legislator. Also note that most reports refer to her as Gabriela Jorge, not Patricia. Some news found here:
Salta Entre Lineas. The results reference linked in the article does pull up
this which shows results in her election. --
Enos733 (
talk)
05:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep I looked into this person and they got quite a bit of coverage as an activist and in her position. As someone else mentioned, she typically uses the name "Gabriela Jorge" (without Patricia) so that may be part of why it was difficult initially to find sourcing.
Lonehexagon (
talk)
20:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Update: Now that the nominator's malfeasance has been revealed and I've withdrawn my isolated delete vote accordingly, I've requested that MBisanz come back and just close this as a
WP:SNOW keep instead of leaving it open for another week. There's no chance whatsoever that it's going anywhere, so there's no point in leaving it open anymore.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete There is not a single source for List of Brooksfilms productions. Although Brooksfilms was founded by Mel Brooks, this article doesn't even mentions that got either Oscar wins or nominations. There are also no indications of notability, and it fails GNG and
WP:NCORP. This is why it should be deleted.
Evil Idiot (
talk)
15:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)reply
This would seem to be complementary to
Category:Brooksfilms films, and it is standard to index articles on notable films by their production companies. I don't know why it should matter for this purpose whether Brooksfilms as a company satisfies GNG (though I'd be surprised if it doesn't), as this isn't an article on the company per se but, again, a standard index of notable films. I also don't see a credible claim that such information is not verifiable, and the films' credits would presumably verify this even if nowhere else (just as you don't need a secondary source to verify a book's publisher). Maybe there's an argument that the nominator has not presented, but I'm not seeing a compelling reason for deletion or even a legitimate concern here. postdlf (talk)
16:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep refs would help but are already available on the individual film articles. Includes extra info to the category such as gross and production company, an awards column could be added but as it is it serves as a useful index page.
Atlantic306 (
talk)
18:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Why exactly is this needed? There's already a category performing the same function. We don't keep lists of "Burgers made by McDonalds" or "Furniture made by Ikea". Why is this different?
Dolescum (
talk)
13:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)reply
See
WP:WEDONTNEEDIT,
WP:NOTDUP, and
WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST for a hint at why your comment hasn't advanced the discussion, not to mention the fact that while all of the films listed here are notable, meriting their own articles, the same would not be true of the products you listed as inapt comparisons (but see also
List of McDonald's products).
Actually, I would refer you to read
WP:NOTDIR and note that this could very easily be seen as a sales catalogue or list of products and the notability of the individual works is irrelevant to that. Throwing up accusations that my comment "hasn't advanced the discussion" looks rather defensive of you on the matter. I'd also remark that the several McDonald's products are apt comparisons as several products, such as the Big Mac, are cultural icons. Can you offer an argument as to what this list offers over a self-maintaining category, given that it simply replicates information already present in the individual articles?
Dolescum (
talk)
05:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Sortability; annotations on distribution studio, year of release, and gross; and the possibility of direct sourcing. And no, I don't think this could "verily easily be seen as a sales catalogue" (yet the category poses no problem to you?), it's a list of notable films released over a span of decades, not a catalog of home media prices or a directory of theater showtimes (and if it had that information we would fix it by removing it). And please do read all of NOTDIR: "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content." postdlf (talk)
17:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I do see this as someone attempting to build a list of entertainment products released by Brooksfilm. You'll note category 4. Despite the fact the tone of your responses has been so obnoxious I feel like declaring delete simply to spite you, I think the reasoning underlying your responses is good, so keep.
Dolescum (
talk)
21:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
From the text in the article this appears to be a means of enjoying comics through VR. This may or may not be notable in the future, but at present a single reference and little better in searches does not add up to notability. Fails
WP:GNGVelellaVelella Talk 05:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There's no article on this specific chart nor the RIA in Singapore, so I'm not sure what makes reaching number one on a digital streaming chart encyclopedic. Are these considered the definitive #1 songs in Singapore or just streaming? Is there significance to reaching number one on this charts, thus better sourcing would be required than just to the chart itself? Fails
WP:LISTN. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me02:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Well, it only has one song in it at present, because we are only one month into 2018 – presumably not even Ed Sheeran will manage to be number one for a whole year. And I don't understand how a British singer can have an American song... The real question, as the nominator says, is whether this is the official chart in Singapore or not. I have concerns about the other charts the article creator has been editing as well – for example, the
List of number-one songs of 2018 (Colombia) uses the
Monitor Latino chart, but I'm pretty sure Colombia's official chart is supplied by
National-Report.
Richard3120 (
talk)
15:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - I considered this chart to be official and at least acceptable, given that the RIA represents all of the music industry in Singapore, and it's also a part of
IFPI (this requisite by itself has allowed other charts to be accepted as "official" here on Wikipedia). Nevertheless, I can see how it can be considered irrelevant, as it only covers streaming, so if the article gets deleted I can understand. --
CHUI372 (
talk)
01:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Multiple reasons. The article consists of two (unsourced) competing histories, and the claim of notability (that he served in a role that was a predecessor to
Surgeon General) is unsourced and somewhat dubious.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
21:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. I'd be willing to buy "Director of Hospitals of the Continental Army in Virginia" as a credible notability claim if the article were actually supported by
reliable source coverage about him, but that's not what the sources here are. #1 is a (deadlinked) family genealogy, not a reliable or notability-supporting source, #2 is here only to support a statement about the usual age at which men married in that era but contains no information about Rickman whatsoever (not even a glancing mention of his name!), and #3 is the (deadlinked) front splash page of a local historical society (with no verifiable evidence on a Wayback Machine search that it actually contained any content about Rickman himself.) And in addition to not being reliable sources in the first place, all of them are just footnoting the conflicting speculations about his personal life, rather than any content that actually pertains to his potential notability claim as a public official at all. Which means none of the sources here are cutting it at all in terms of establishing notability, and the role is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be sourced much better than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment. Going only by the current article and its properly-formatted references, there would be only two, fairly minor, points to add to the previous discussion. Firstly, a badly-formatted reference in the second paragraph of the "Kittiewan Plantation interpretation" section of the article does provide a legitimate source (even if it is primary and far too brief to contribute much towards notability) - a
contemporary announcement of Rickman's 1775 marriage to a daughter of
Benjamin Harrison V. Secondly, that full section of the article is shown by a look at the article history to have been added by an SPA in 2009 - and reference #3 is best taken not as an actual reference but as a declaration of authorship by the SPA. Moreover,
a Ph.D. dissertation with two passing mentions of Rickman sources one of those two references (on page 242) in a way which strongly suggests that the SPA (or a namesake) is or was connected as a volunteer, contractor or employee to the current owners of Kittiewan Plantation.
Turning more generally to potentially reliable external sources, most relate to his period as what the article refers to as "Director of Hospitals of the Continental Army in Virginia" between 1776 and 1780. The nominator seems to regard the notability of this role as in some way dubious, and the claim of notability in the article is certainly rather overblown. I can only find the title as the article gives it in modern sources, and the actual title given to Rickman seems to vary from one resolution of the Continental Congress to the next - the situation behind it seems most clearly described in
this account (which I am inclined to take as a reliable source). Judging from this, the official at this time who was most directly the predecessor of the
Surgeon General of the United States Army was probably not Rickman but
William Shippen Jr. - but Rickman was completely outside Shippen's authority. Another wrinkle in this situation is that the same work as I have just cited elsewhere describes how the Commonwealth of Virginia
set up its own completely separate hospital, appointing
James McClurg as its director.
Rickman's career in the post scarcely seems to have gone smoothly. The Ph.D. dissertation already mentioned (this time on page 178) notes that Rickman's original appointment attracted accusations of nepotism, and cites
John E. Selby's "The Revolution in Virginia, 1775-1783" to this effect (though the relevant page of this is not visible in GBooks). The book mentioned in the last paragraph describes not only the previously mentioned turf wars but also the delays in finding a suitable hospital site that preceded them. Then, following some rather disastrous results of a smallpox inoculation program (for which
this account seems to be the most thorough source, and
this a fairly full but possibly less reliable one), the Continental Congress suspended Rickman from his post in December 1777 but reinstated him after an investigation in March 1778. After that, the sources go fairly quiet. His resignation in October 1780, in the midst of a reorganisation which had no obvious place for him, is approved
in the Journal of the Continental Congress, who also then chase him over a couple of items of unfinished business. The next we seem to hear is in late 1783, when his widow petitions the Virginia House of Delegates for what amounts to backpay apparently owed to him -
she gets title to about 6,000 acres in Ohio. After that, we get a chain of legal cases over the next century, all disputing or claiming this inheritance - and all quite likely in (easily findable) primary sources only. There are quite a few sources attesting to his ownership of what is now
Kittiewan, but while this is almost certain to be true, it seems difficult to find any source that does more than assert this.
Moreover, Rickman effectively has no verifiable past before 1775 and his marriage to Elizabeth Harrison. In the two or three years before the marriage, he slowly gets more and more passing mentions in primary sources - but that is all. The William Rickman who was a surgeon on a Royal Navy ship between 1766 and 1769 seems to have one or two reliable sources, but none which firmly connect his with our William Rickman. And we seem to have no reliable information about other aspects of his previous life - when he was born, had he married previously, and so on.
What we are therefore left with is a person almost certainly with enough good sources to guarantee notability for a very limited period of his life - but where even the basic facts of the rest of his life can not be reliably traced. And very little (perhaps none) of the current article would be likely to survive in a satisfactory article here. So, while in principle, there is enough for a keep !vote, it is not clear that it is worth it in practice.
PWilkinson (
talk)
00:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - I don't find many sources other than those already listed. There is some mention of him as justice fo the peace in Charles City in newspapers from that era
[43], but I'm not familiar enough with the era to know if attaching that William Rickman to this one is obvious or OR, although he is listed next to his neighbor David Minge in those newspaper articles. It seems certain to me that he was chief administrator of Continental Army Hospitals and director of a hospital in Virginia during the Revolutionary War (I would consider the thesis a reliable source, here). That he died in 1783, and he married Elizabeth Harrison, daughter of Benjamin Harrison. That he lived in Charles City. I wouldn't argue against saying that he owned land which is now all or part of Kittiewan, although I agree that the sources there aren't the best. Based on the sources I've looked at, I wouldn't include anything about his life before his marriage to Elizabeth. And while I see genealogies and DAR records about his descendents, I also don't see anything reliable that can connect him to any children. With those caveats, he seems a suitable subject for the encyclopedia and an article can be written about him wich is verifiable, neutral point of view, and not original research.
Smmurphy(
Talk)17:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete The sources are pretty weak. And all in French -- especially given that fr wiki discussed and then deleted. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Theredproject (
talk •
contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - Just by going from English language sources, this most certainly was a real village.
[44] Even if there is a "partial" copyvio,
AfD is not the answer. Just remove the the copyvio content. It can be reduced to a stub if need be. --
Oakshade (
talk)
01:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - Strangely, the user who contributed the material that is both on the blog and in the article,
User:Andreypl, has a very similar name to the author of the blog, Andrzej Polska. To me, the problem isn't likely copyright violation - although I don't know what copyright blogspot might claim if the material was posted there first. It might be that primary sources are not optimal for this sort of information. In any case, this looks like a real place and generally would be considered suitable for inclusion based on
WP:NGEO.
Smmurphy(
Talk)01:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment, have added a possible copy vio tag to the relevent section.
Coolabahapple (
talk) 03:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC) ps. although it looks like it was first on WP (just in a different format) as the article was created here, and subsequent additional information added before the information appeared on the blog according to the dates of the post there.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
04:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep per
WP:GEOLAND - the village clearly existed per the article and cursory BEFORE. On procedural grounds this is a wrong nomination - a copyvio should've gone to a speedy deletion request, not AfD, if on the entire article. I do not see the copyvio at the moment - but if it was on part of the article, that part should've been redacted (and revdelled).
Icewhiz (
talk)
13:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I think I know why the article creator has avoided adding sources now...thanks for the source which must be added if this survives AFD if only to be able to read this following quote which is a classic ...
The unrealistic stunts will actually make you squirm in your seat. Teachers are bound to get irritated at the way they are presented in this flick. They appear as if they are ramp-walking and the less said about the school principal the better.
Ileana wears barely there outfits and has nothing much to do in the film except look glamourous. The camera tries to capture more of her midriff in various angles than her face. Perhaps the director knows she cannot act.
The music by Keeravani is pathetic. So are the dance numbers. Kota Srinivasa Rao does justice in a cameo. The double entendre and the bizarre stunts really hurt. Only a miracle can save this film -- watch it at your own risk.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Doesn't appear to meet
WP:NALBUM; additionally: "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography."
Enwebb (
talk)
03:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
The Quireboys#Albums. I guess this is well after the Quireboys heyday and the music press had lost interest in them, although I wouldn't be surprised if there was a review of this record in the print versions of NME or Q at the time. Fails
WP:NALBUM but no harm in redirecting it though.
Richard3120 (
talk)
14:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep According to
WP:BEFORE, "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability" before nominating an article for deletion. A quick Google search shows several examples of significant coverage in secondary sources to satisfy
WP:GNG. She is a very popular journalist and was arrested live on TV;[2] an incident that was widely reported. I have added these to the article.[3][4][5][6][7] She's also won awards from NBC.[8]Lonehexagon (
talk)
20:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)reply
These seem mostly to be videos and websites. The NBC "awards" are self-described as: After having Lunch with the CEO Kin Kariisa , I walked away with three awards and three Certificates of recognition. I have been awarded for being the most Daring reporter, Best person of the week and NBS TV Personality in other media. I have also won A cash prize, and a Dinner Voucher for two. You can't, with a straight face, be proposing that these demonstrate notability, right?
Agricola44 (
talk)
18:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is a mess of language template errors on gmq-bot. Even though the article and the subject might be notable I am nominating this soft deletion or draftify to fix. Hagennos❯❯❯Talk02:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The reason all these errors are showing up is the recent rewriting of the {{lang}} template. There are two possible solutions: 1) set all instances of this template in the article to use a language tag that the template finds acceptable (gmq would do the trick if there isn't anything more specific), or 2) request support for the gmq-bot tag at
Template talk:Lang. And
Hagennos, AfD isn't the place to seek help for fixing technical issues in articles; if you can't think of a more specific place, the
WP:Teahouse is usually a good starting point. –
Uanfala (talk)05:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep I can't see any "mess" in the article. Perhaps the technical issues have been sorted out since it was nominated for deletion? /
FredrikT (
talk)
15:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm only seeing one non-trivial source (a brief review
here); doesn't appear to meet
WP:NBOOK. This is mostly another platform for the writer and all the references listed pertain to him, and not this book.
Enwebb (
talk)
01:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Hmm, yes it's unreleased...but it gets released in a month and there's already loads of coverage, so deleting it now would be pointless. --
Michig (
talk)
07:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep: I agree with Michig - this article has been created too soon, but their last two albums reached no. 1 and no. 7 on the Billboard 200 so I think we can be pretty confident that this record will have plenty of reviews and a chart position four weeks from now, so the deletion isn't worth it.
Richard3120 (
talk)
14:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Seems pretty stupid and incredibly pedantic to delete an article which will clearly satisfy notability very soon. And to be frank is notable now. Stupid, pointless discussion and a complete and utter waste of everyone above's time.
If you had waited a few weeks to create the page and for notability to be satisfied then instead of "soon" then we might not be having this "stupid, pointless discussion".
Richard3120 (
talk)
21:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not a notable product, seems to be a review article, would be better served on the page of the Dell Inspiron lineup
BrxBrx(
talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})00:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Page is of a non-notable product, which can be better served by including it in the main article on the HP Pavilion line.
BrxBrx(
talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})00:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Internet radio services are not handed an automatic free pass over
WP:NMEDIA just because they're technically verifiable as existing, but this isn't sourced anywhere near well enough to pass
WP:GNG in lieu: two of the three sources are press releases from the station, and the third is a deadlink whose former content is entirely unverifiable.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - The page about the organizer of this project, Arthur Charles,
was recently deleted - I think better sources could make that subject suitable for the encyclopedia in the future. However, Charles' individual projects are not themselves clearly recieving enough coverage that pages about them don't seem overly promotional and have significant POV issues.
Smmurphy(
Talk)21:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relatively young biotech company. Has no products on the market and not even an early stage lead development candidate. "Article" is basically a directory listing and is beset by its creator who is hammering the talk page with demands to "update" it with news about very early and incremental steps in the company's scientific development, based on a primary source (a scientific paper by people affiliated with the company) and a press release hyping it. (these steps may turn out to be correct, or not replicable and thus dead ends, or may turn out to be dead ends several years down the road....). The company is
WP:TOOSOON (if ever) and not worth our effort to maintain. This is pretty much the kind of page we want to rule out by raising NCORP standards.
Jytdog (
talk) 18:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC) (correction
Jytdog (
talk)
14:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC))reply
Keep - Bad faith nomination by an editor trying to avoid a content discussion. Coverage of this company in RS is fairly extensive. Clearly meets
WP:GNG.
NickCT (
talk)
I had been cutting this slack as its notability is marginal at best, but your advocacy has made that not worth while, and more so as time has gone on. Not bad faith, just unwilling to tolerate corporate cruft that is also being bludgeoned.
Jytdog (
talk)
02:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
@
K.e.coffman: - Care to be specific? Which references exactly don't meet which
WP:CORPDEPTH criteria? Your comment re "not achieved anything significant just yet" may be true, but isn't really relevant. If "hasn't achieved anything significant" was a rationale for deletion, we could probably delete a whole bunch of articles.
NickCT (
talk)
13:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Note to closer - A couple editors seem to be stripping references from the article in what seems like an attempt to make it appear less notable. I'm going to include the stripped references here for the record.
NickCT (
talk)
22:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I've been asked to elaborate on the sources that do not meet CORPDEPTH. The sources above are exactly such sources, such as
"Could an injection reverse hearing loss? This Woburn startup thinks so". Boston Globe.
These types of articles discuss the company's hopes and aspirations. They lack intellectual independence and are insufficient for notability.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
00:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Greetings. I do not understand your comment about "intellectual independence". The link takes us to a Boston Globe article and not corporate
puffery. This is a text that mentions extensively a corporation - precisely the kind of appearance in a
reliable source required by Wikipedia. I'm sure you're not suggesting we should prefer information from the company itself, since Wikipedia actively and explicitly discourages
the use of primary sources, i.e. info from the subject itself. Take care. -
The Gnome (
talk)
10:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep This article about a
private corporation meets the
required criteria: it has been the "subject of significant coverage in secondary sources", per citations above (plus others one can find, such as
here,
here, or
here), which go beyond "one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source"; coverage in sources evidently extends far "above routine announcements"; and so on. This is a keeper. -
The Gnome (
talk)
10:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete A run-of-the-mill medical startup, no indications of notability (but a lot of aspiration), reference contents are not intellectually independent, relies extensively on PRIMARY data, fails
WP:CORPDEPTH and/or
WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG.
HighKing++ 23:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - a passing reference, two 'local business on the rise' articles and a web story that looks like an uncritical regurgitation of a press release. This company may become notable, but it doesn't look like they are there yet.
Agricolae (
talk)
00:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.