![]() |
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable minor league baseball player; fails WP:NBASEBALL. Now out of MiLB after signing w/ independent league team Pozzi.c ( talk) 23:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) B dash ( talk) 02:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a writer, who has no strong or reliably sourced claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. The strongest notability claims here are unsourced assertions about minor literary "awards" that aren't instant notability passes, and mostly sound like council or foundation grants rather than actual awards, and the referencing is 50 per cent her own primary source profiles on the self-published websites of her own publishers and 50 per cent blogs, which means that it's exactly zero per cent notability-supporting coverage in real reliable sources -- and the only other attempt at "referencing" that was present here at all was a set of WP:ELNO-violating offlinks to her books' own sales pages on Amazon or their publishers' websites. As always, the notability test for a writer is not just that her work metaverifies its own existence on online bookstores -- it requires real, genuinely reliable media sources to devote attention to her writing, such as critical reviews of her books and/or actual journalism about her, but none of the sources here meet that standard. Bearcat ( talk) 22:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Bearcat. I see your nomination for the article Maureen Brady for deletion. Allow me to explain why I think this should not happen.
Maureen Brady's work is of historical importance. She was a prominent writer and publisher during the period of "women's fiction", specifically the advent of lesbian fiction in the 70s and 80s. She founded a very important publishing company -- Spinsters Ink -- which is of historical importance to lesbian and feminist publishing. And her early work was lauded by prominent lesbian feminists such as Audre Lorde.
I started this article before I was able to access the writer's archives. Much of the important press Brady received was at a time before the internet. As a lesbian feminist she is of a marginalized group and therefore it will take a little more work for me to access the citations that, I agree, are necessary to prove her notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines. However, I plan to visit an archive that will give me more information and my research will provide more relevant links. I do agree that the sources are slim, but I do plan to improve them. It would be a real disservice to delete the article prematurely, when Brady is such an important figure to the history of the development of women's fiction in the United States. (Recently the Feminist Press re-issued Folly, one of her early works, as a classic).
Please give me a few days to improve the article. Thank you for your feedback. Thanks, Osomadre. Osomadre ( talk) 23:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Osomadre
Thank you for your help, RebeccaGreen and 9H48F. Visiting the writer's archives, which I did today, was helpful to find things out that I couldn't find out by searching the web. As many of the author's reviews were from pre-internet times, unfortunately I was not able to use some of the ones I found today because they are not online. I think it's very clear at this point that this article and this author meets the notability guidelines. The criticism from Bearcat was helpful and now I think the article is much improved. Question: when can we agree to let the article stay put? Thanks, Osomadre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osomadre ( talk • contribs) 01:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you RebeccaGreen. I did not know that about citations not needing to exist online. I am a new Wikipedia editor -- I joined as a result of the #ArtandFeminism Women's History Month Edit-A-Thons, and so far the only editing I had done was on visual artist pages, which I'm much more familiar with as an artist myself. Do you recommend JSTOR? It seems you found some great things that are inaccessible through a regular google search. Thanks again, Osomadre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osomadre ( talk • contribs) 12:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Thincat! That is so helpful. It's so good to connect with other Wikipedia editors who are interested in correcting the systemic bias. I appreciate your suggestions and am just learning a lot including how to create manual references...All the best, Osomadre — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osomadre ( talk • contribs) 02:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
There was this song once, and then some parties in Melbourne in 2009. That’s it. Not notable. Mccapra ( talk) 22:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
This article is an April Fool hoax that has survived for nine years. Mccapra ( talk) 22:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The only extant article whose base name is "Lucy in the Sky" is Lucy in the Sky, about the film.
Karolina Dean is apparently alternatively known as "Lucy in the Sky", but that can just be indicated in a hatnote at Lucy in the Sky. If the Beatles song is also known colloquially as simply "Lucy in the Sky", we can link to Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds in the hatnote too.
"William Shatner's version" is a cover (?) and doesn't have its own article. The video game isn't even known as "Lucy in the Sky with Dynamites" like the DAB page claims it is, according to the article, and it's simply a "bonus CD" which a limited edition of the game came with, not to mention it's "Lucy in the Sky with Dynamites", not "Lucy in the Sky". Things named "Lucy" after the Beatles song listed in the See also section are outside the scope of a disambiguation page (none of the articles indicate they are known alternatively as "... in the Sky" either), and can just be covered in Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.
Overall, there is nothing to disambiguate that a hatnote at Lucy in the Sky can't. Nardog ( talk) 22:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Prod that was removed. A possible autobio of a person from what I can tell is non notable with no reliable sources to be found. Wgolf ( talk) 22:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Only RS I can find (couple Texas Tribune pieces) mention him only in passing as speaking for one of his clients. Fails WP:GNG, violates WP:SPIP. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 22:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Much ado about not much. A series article for two films seems like overkill, and the article is basically repeats information already in the individual film articles, and adds some tables with incomplete information. BilCat ( talk) 21:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Obviously non-notable. The fact that it can be argued to incorporate particular sociological concepts does not mean that it inherits notability from those concepts. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 21:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. It looks like the article has been significantly updated since being listed at AFD and the consensus now is that it passes WP:BASIC (non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 02:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Article on a non-notable clergyman. No clear claim of notability and no sources found in a WP:BEFORE. RetiredDuke ( talk) 21:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted via PROD in 2017, contested at my user page. Restoring for community discussion. I didn't find much in the way of sources except this short article from the virtual US-Iran Embassy, so I'm leaning delete, but maybe there's sources in Farsi I didn't see. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
No evidence of notability, sources are routine listings of events or songs, not indepth independent sources about the artist. Fram ( talk) 09:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Sources found. (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian ( talk) 13:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Declined PROD. WP:BEFORE reveals no sources that come close to the necessary WP:CORPDEPTH required fro a company article. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 18:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Opting for AfD to allow users with access to offline sources (as the establishment is old) to chip in, however, searches in databases of such sources e.g. WorldCat don't look too promising. SITH (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Possible duplication of another article, List of most-disliked YouTube videos. Why do i say this? Most of the videos are not even indian, why is Baby here? Why is Its Everyday Bro here? Why is Marsha and the Bear: Recipe for Disaster here? TheWin RatHere! 16:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Never held any major roles, pretty much all the standard extra/minor character parts and is not notable for his business either. No coverage and the only mentions in papers (even in print copies that I searched through) are pretty standard like property transactions. The best article on him is the obit in playbill, however it still in no way establishes notability. Praxidicae ( talk) 16:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
No coverage beyond local sources and even those are mostly puff pieces, interviews or press releases. Praxidicae ( talk) 16:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Questionable notability. Claims in article about download numbers are suspect. Article has strong air of paid editing. Also see author's article as well: Chad Mureta which was created by a sockpuppet around the same time as this article. PureRED | talk to me | 16:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how this passes muster for an encyclopedia. Laun chba ller 16:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
<please do not delete the Spindle Magazine Wikipedia page. The company has change tremendously since its inception (when the page was created) and its Wikipedia needed to be updated to showcase the company's full range. I have added many citations so that any doubt as to relevance and authenticity is cleared. Thanks very much> Soldi2019 ( talk) 12:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Article appears to be an attempted
promotion for a new business radio station, with no evidence of notability. Two sources in the article (in Irish) are a fundraising request and a brief promotional announcement, and nothing further could be found. Editors have tried to pad the article with photos of the city the station is in and links to similar stations in the "See also" section, but none of those pertain to the station itself. ---
DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)
15:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Raidió na dTreabh is not a "business" but a internet radio station which hopes (and probably will get eventually in my opinion) a community radio license in Galway. ~~Darren J. Prior~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darren J. Prior ( talk • contribs) 15:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
It's not as if the station does not exist; I don't see what the problem is with leaving the page as a stub. ~~Darren J. Prior~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darren J. Prior ( talk • contribs) 17:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
One of the articles linked on the page, not two of them, is a fundraising request. The other two links are noteworthy I believe. ~~Darren J. Prior~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darren J. Prior ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Failing WP:GNG on the basis of lacking substantive coverage in reliable, independent sources. Most of the material is primary (authored by the subject) or based on reports by the subject without apparent editorial verification. As a side note, this has a long history of deletions, e.g. Comradephils or Philsville by various authors. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 12:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete Clearly not notable, fails WP:GNG. Hughesdarren ( talk) 12:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Citing instances of previous deletion as points is out of place. We should centre on the notability and reliable sources angle. One of the newspapers that carried his news is notable for reporting issues related to corruption. The final call is on the community to decide. Uche2018 ( talk) 16:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Horrible article with hardly any sources. Given the low participation in this debate, no prejudice against another nomination soon. Randykitty ( talk) 17:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable musician. Not finding any evidence of significant independent coverage of this musician. No significant reviews of his music or book. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 20:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Randykitty ( talk) 16:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Apparent subject of the article Francis John Patrick M. Vicente himself requested the article to be deleted. Also to ascertain if the subject's notability since admittedly most sources are primary sources or routine coverage on coaching assignment changes. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 03:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 02:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable local politician. The article incorrectly state she was on the New Jersey Superior Court, she was only a county surrogate. Neither that position, being mayor, or county freeholder gives her notability under WP:POLITICIAN Also, I believe WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies here too. Rusf10 ( talk) 02:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep
Djflem ( talk) 08:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Given the low participation in this debate, no prejudice against another nomination soon. Randykitty ( talk) 16:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Renomination following a no-consensus closure. This is WP:BLP of a local radio and television personality, which is still referenced almost entirely to content created by his own colleagues rather than genuinely independent evidence of encyclopedic notability. Six of the ten sources here are directly published by his own station or its co-owned sister stations in the same city; two more are duplications of the same wire service obituary bylined by a coworker of his; one is a very short, unsubstantive blurb on the website of his market's other television station, and the last is simply a Google Books directory entry for a book he wrote, which is being used solely to metaverify its own existence rather than showing that it achieved anything that would get him over WP:AUTHOR. None of this constitutes evidence that he had a nationalized notability claim for the purposes of getting a Wikipedia article, and media outlets don't get to self-publish their own employees into the "just because media coverage exists" brand of notability. Bearcat ( talk) 19:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Randykitty ( talk) 16:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. I tagged it for speedy deletion, but another administrator declined it because Delemotte is "associated with notable people". To the extent that's a valid reason for declining an A7, it's certainly not a valid reason for keeping an article. The subject has to be notable in their own right. Bbb23 ( talk) 17:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. I'm discounting the view of Narine1202 because, as the nominator notes, their history makes it likely that they are an undeclared paid editor. Sandstein 19:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
minor specialized company manufacturing automobile wiring components. The references are almost entirely either listings or mere notes, which is not enough for NCORP. Article by a spa, presumably an undeclared paid editor, but no actual proof of that DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I created ESMO Corporation page believing that it is a company that is worth having a wikipedia page.
Thank you and I will get back to you if I have more comments to add, Hope you will give this another thought and help me out.
Regars, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narine1202 ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Narine1202 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Narine1202 ( talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.
I was again reviewing wikipedia's policy regarding companies that are notable to be on wikipedia and sources that are regarded reliable secondary and what is significant coverage. I believe that some of the sources for ESMO Corporation page definitely fulfil these criterias. According to wikipedia, substantial coverage in independant sources includes e.g. a news article discussing a corporate merger/partnership, a source that illustrates the environmental impact of the corporation (and I assume economic impact will also be considered substantial coverage), and others, examples of which you can find in the article sources. So, I believe there is no problem with the company being notable or worth having a wikipedia page. Regarding the claim about WP:PAID, again I am not paid for creating this article and defending my hard work is I guess natural. Lastly, according to wikipedia's deletion policy if consensus is not reached within 7 days the article should stay in the mainspace as default. It is already 7 days the article is reviewed for deletion and I would like to finally know what is going to happen to the article. Again, if you think it is better to add more sources in Korean I will do that or if you think I need to edit the source if the tone is not neutral I will again do that. I just only require to give a certain answer as to what I am supposed to do to help this article be finally considered good enough to be on wikipedia. Thank you, Narine1202 Narine1202 ( talk)
The result was no consensus. I’m not sure that the added coverage really meets the threshold of the GNG in regards to significant independent coverage focused on Wall the person, but none of the earlier delete opinions factored in the added sourcing uncovered during the AfD, whereas it was considered in later keeps. If another AfD is filed in the future, it should deal with the quality of the coverage in these sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
No indication of encyclopedic notability. Priests, even rectors and deans, are not inherently notable. bd2412 T 00:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
*Delete , no indication of notability.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 09:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC) Probably KEEP. He does come up in news searches on "peter Wal" + Niagara. I think we need time to take a closer look and source this one.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
15:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
"This article creator has indeed irresponsibly started literally thousands of clergy sub-stubs like this one"
Hi I am "this article creator". Perhaps User:Reywas92 would care to read Wikipedia:Civility Bashereyre ( talk) 14:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. A possible merge elsewhere can be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty ( talk) 16:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I can't find any significant coverage, fails WP:BASIC. I believe that WP:BLP1E applies. wumbolo ^^^ 21:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The subject is very notable.
https://thehill.com/opinion/education/382560-exclusive-broward-countys-100-million-failure-on-school-safety?amp The Hill covered him.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/07/rubio-asks-feds-investigate-obama-school-discipline-rules-affected-parkland-shooting/ The Federalist. Senator Marco Rubio asked for an investigation over Preston's report.
https://www.weeklystandard.com/alice-b-lloyd/the-broward-blame-game?_amp=true Weekly Standard covering Preston.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/press-release-red-alert-politics-celebrates-30-under-30-award-winners Won a '30 under 30' award.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPef9pO44xA Appeared on the Daily Wire with Michael Knowles.
https://www.browardbeat.com/reports-broward-schools-sat-on-100-million-earmarked-for-school-safety/ Broward Beat
He also has 12,000 followers on his Twitter page, and his tweets gain significant attraction. There are other students from Parkland that are far less notable and have active pages, ex: Alfonso Calderon (activist)
Chrisrow ( talk) 23:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC) Chrisrow
So can we close the discussion? Chrisrow ( talk) 00:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Chrisrow
addresses the topic directly and in detail(per GNG). Therefore Kenneth Preston does not pass WP:GNG. On top of that, this falls squarely into WP:BLP1E. If a new article is created specifically about this investigation, then this material can be merged there instead. — MarkH21 ( talk) 04:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Randykitty ( talk) 16:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Subject does not pass WP:GNG pr WP:NACADEMIC. A Web of Science ( standard metric) search returned 13 papers with few citations (13, 13, 4, 4, 1, 1, 0, 0, ..., 0). A Scopus search returned 9 papers and textbooks with few citations (27, 22, 7, 4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 0). These are typically too few to pass #1 of WP:NACADEMIC and there is no evidence of passing any of the other criteria. — MarkH21 ( talk) 09:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. His research, especially considering that Google Scholar includes non-peer-reviewed sources in the citation count and that discrete mathematics & algorithms tend to have higher citation counts, does not seem to be influential enough for criterion 1 of WP:NACADEMIC. Looking through the MathSciNet reviews, there isn't much evidence of having
developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. — MarkH21 ( talk) 16:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.or Criterion 4:
The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.It definitely does not match criterion 2 or 3.
Regarding Criterion 4 of
WP:NACADEMIC, the specific note that you are applying says: several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education
. Indeed, I see that Discrete Mathematics and Foundations of Mathematical Analysis are used in multiple syllabi, with a two or three uses of Algorithms, Applications Programming in C++, and Applications Programming in ANSI C each. That's two books that could be (arguably) "widely used", but even with those I don't see "several books" being so. —
MarkH21 (
talk)
21:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
of multiple independent periodical articles or reviewsis a supplementary requirement in addition to it being recognized as
a significant or well-known work. I don't think it has that status though (and I do know it – I used it when I was an undergraduate!). It's an undergraduate textbook with 66 citations on Google Scholar that isn't commonly referred to in literature (unlike e.g. Algebra by Lang, Algebraic Geometry by Hartshorne, the Princeton Lectures in Analysis series by Stein and Shakarchi, etc.). — MarkH21 ( talk) 21:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. It is not an attempt to intentionally and inappropriately misinterpret the criteria or game the system. — MarkH21 ( talk) 21:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. There seems to be good consensus that this person is currently not notable (this is even asserted by several "keep" !votes) and that this may be a case of TOOSOON. However, keeping a copy in an editor's sandbox is not a good solution for two reasons. First of all and most importantly, the copy paste to User:Mary Mark Ockerbloom/sandbox/Natani Notah violates our copyright, because the edit history has been lost. Second, articles deleted at AfD should not be kept in a user's personal space indefinitely. There is nothing wrong with making a note to self to revisit this yearly and if this person at some point becomes notable, it will be easy enough to undelete the current version and work from there. Because of the copyright issue, I will also delete the current sandbox version. Randykitty ( talk) 15:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Not yet a notable artist. Sources are either not independent, not indepth, or blogs and the like. No Google News results, no other sources which could help establish notability. Fram ( talk) 13:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep for now I generally believe that this individual, while doing good work, is not notable yet to the point that she merits her own page. I generally look to see if the sources are national or international in scope. However, I appreciate the work being done on this page and would encourage the authors to continue. Leaving it up will enable them to do that. If, in another 6 months or so there has been no updates or edits of value, a RFD is approrpriate. Coffee312 ( talk) 21:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 15:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
No evidence that the subject (this particular John Dwyer) satisfies WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. There are almost no independent sources on the subject at all, while MathSciNet only returns his PhD thesis with no citations. Web of Science and Scopus searches returns many John Dwyers but none in mathematics or computer science. — MarkH21 ( talk) 09:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Debate suffered from a lack of participation. No prejudice to taking this to AfD again in a month or so. Randykitty ( talk) 15:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Unreferenced personal essay Rathfelder ( talk) 20:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty ( talk) 15:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Unremarkable Film Festival of local importance, Fails WP:Event. Lacks any sources Grey Wanderer ( talk) 00:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
i guess im just confused...how "remarkable" would sato have to become to have a page? -historic66 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historic66 ( talk • contribs) 17:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 15:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Not notable at the current time. Has been part of a few web series but mainly notable as being part of the "Bratayley" YouTube channel which, due to lack of coverage, isn't enough for her to have an article. Andise1 ( talk) 20:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was Speedy deleted WP:G4. (non-admin closure) Ceethekreator ( talk) 10:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Creator who created the recently deleted (several times over) "Jayanta Nath" has now created a filmography page for the same person. Going to copy the reasoning from the
other AfD:
Non-notable singer/director, their only supposedly notable film (Hriday Kapowa Gaan) hasn't received the necessary coverage to pass WP:NFILM, nor have the others, so fails the various N criteria for creative people
(thanks
Praxidicae)
Dreamy Jazz 🎷
talk to me |
my contributions
08:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Randykitty ( talk) 15:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Only one entry even has an article. Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 15:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. Given that the subject appears to meet WP:PROF, draftifying is probably the best solution. Randykitty ( talk) 14:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Failing WP:GNG and WP:PROF. A researcher who publishes. Run-of-the-mill. Essentially a very bloated WP:AUTOBIO that summarises their published papers. WP:NOTWEBHOST also applies. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others.Thus, h-index numbers are not enough to establish notability when other evidence is absent. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 23:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#1. No valid rationale for deletion advanced. If you want to propose a merge, discuss it on the talk page; see Wikipedia:Merge#Propose a merger. – Joe ( talk) 08:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Adequately covered in the Rising Star Cave article - this page is just CV enhancing puffery and could sensibly be deleted Bledwith ( talk) 07:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
MERGE Actually I think this a merge with a redirect. There's not a long term use of this term outside of the context of this specific cave and excavation. Bledwith ( talk) 07:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 14:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Appears to have no achievements to meet WP:NBOX and I have found no significant coverage in RS except for routine fight announcements and reports. Delete. Just Chilling ( talk) 00:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 14:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Olson doesn't appear to be notable. I found this student newspaper which confirms that he's an academic at SAIT Polytechnic who does voice acting as a hobby, but on its own that's not enough. I couldn't find any other reliable sources covering him. I don't see that he meets either WP:NPROF or WP:NACTOR. Huon ( talk) 23:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Miss World Sri Lanka. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Whilst a winner at Miss Sri Lanka 2015 did not place at Miss World and no evidence of any notable activity since partipating in Miss World Dan arndt ( talk) 10:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 14:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
GNG fail. Unsourced and I do not see good sourcing in a search. Also, possibly the most promotional article I have ever seen, although that is not a strict criteria for deletion. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 04:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 14:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think this meets any of our notability criteria. There's no enough in-depth sources for WP:GNG, WP:NORG (as a group), or WP:NARTIST (as performers). The sources in the article are a) a blog entry from a local brewery b) a decent article from a local paper c) a couple-sentence fluff piece in NPR and d) a defunct biking enthusiast periodical (with a limited scope if it's the same one referred to here).
It's not enough to hang an article on, and I couldn't find any more in-depth sources when I searched. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Kbabej ( talk) 00:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
There is no assertion of notability. Per a WP:BEFORE search, there just isn't coverage in RS. Kbabej ( talk) 03:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Pure Fancruft. In the Mega Man series, Robot Masters are the names of the enemies who act as bosses at the end of stages, and this is a big list of all of them, effectively being a list of bosses from the Mega Man series. Not bad info per se, just not here. This belongs on a fan wiki. Robot Master can be handled in a single paragraph on the Mega Man page, or game by game, not an exhaustive list on its own. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 02:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Does not meet notability criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. References given do not discuss him significantly, and Google search for the name does not come up with anything that does, except for a couple of newspaper articles discussing controversy surrounding him. ... discospinster talk 00:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Kofi Danso is my first article creation, I am willing to improve it to save it from deletion. Please advise. Thanks guys Straightshoot101 ( talk) 08:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello. No claim of significance but A7 does not apply to books. I am not sure this book has even been released. Thanks and regards, Biwom ( talk) 00:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable actor. Was previously nominated for deletion, and deleted. Natg 19 ( talk) 00:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Had been previously deleted; non-notable minor league baseball player. Fails WP:NBASEBALL. Pozzi.c ( talk) 02:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable minor league baseball player; fails WP:NBASEBALL. Now out of MiLB after signing w/ independent league team Pozzi.c ( talk) 23:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) B dash ( talk) 02:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a writer, who has no strong or reliably sourced claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. The strongest notability claims here are unsourced assertions about minor literary "awards" that aren't instant notability passes, and mostly sound like council or foundation grants rather than actual awards, and the referencing is 50 per cent her own primary source profiles on the self-published websites of her own publishers and 50 per cent blogs, which means that it's exactly zero per cent notability-supporting coverage in real reliable sources -- and the only other attempt at "referencing" that was present here at all was a set of WP:ELNO-violating offlinks to her books' own sales pages on Amazon or their publishers' websites. As always, the notability test for a writer is not just that her work metaverifies its own existence on online bookstores -- it requires real, genuinely reliable media sources to devote attention to her writing, such as critical reviews of her books and/or actual journalism about her, but none of the sources here meet that standard. Bearcat ( talk) 22:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Bearcat. I see your nomination for the article Maureen Brady for deletion. Allow me to explain why I think this should not happen.
Maureen Brady's work is of historical importance. She was a prominent writer and publisher during the period of "women's fiction", specifically the advent of lesbian fiction in the 70s and 80s. She founded a very important publishing company -- Spinsters Ink -- which is of historical importance to lesbian and feminist publishing. And her early work was lauded by prominent lesbian feminists such as Audre Lorde.
I started this article before I was able to access the writer's archives. Much of the important press Brady received was at a time before the internet. As a lesbian feminist she is of a marginalized group and therefore it will take a little more work for me to access the citations that, I agree, are necessary to prove her notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines. However, I plan to visit an archive that will give me more information and my research will provide more relevant links. I do agree that the sources are slim, but I do plan to improve them. It would be a real disservice to delete the article prematurely, when Brady is such an important figure to the history of the development of women's fiction in the United States. (Recently the Feminist Press re-issued Folly, one of her early works, as a classic).
Please give me a few days to improve the article. Thank you for your feedback. Thanks, Osomadre. Osomadre ( talk) 23:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Osomadre
Thank you for your help, RebeccaGreen and 9H48F. Visiting the writer's archives, which I did today, was helpful to find things out that I couldn't find out by searching the web. As many of the author's reviews were from pre-internet times, unfortunately I was not able to use some of the ones I found today because they are not online. I think it's very clear at this point that this article and this author meets the notability guidelines. The criticism from Bearcat was helpful and now I think the article is much improved. Question: when can we agree to let the article stay put? Thanks, Osomadre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osomadre ( talk • contribs) 01:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you RebeccaGreen. I did not know that about citations not needing to exist online. I am a new Wikipedia editor -- I joined as a result of the #ArtandFeminism Women's History Month Edit-A-Thons, and so far the only editing I had done was on visual artist pages, which I'm much more familiar with as an artist myself. Do you recommend JSTOR? It seems you found some great things that are inaccessible through a regular google search. Thanks again, Osomadre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osomadre ( talk • contribs) 12:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Thincat! That is so helpful. It's so good to connect with other Wikipedia editors who are interested in correcting the systemic bias. I appreciate your suggestions and am just learning a lot including how to create manual references...All the best, Osomadre — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osomadre ( talk • contribs) 02:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
There was this song once, and then some parties in Melbourne in 2009. That’s it. Not notable. Mccapra ( talk) 22:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
This article is an April Fool hoax that has survived for nine years. Mccapra ( talk) 22:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The only extant article whose base name is "Lucy in the Sky" is Lucy in the Sky, about the film.
Karolina Dean is apparently alternatively known as "Lucy in the Sky", but that can just be indicated in a hatnote at Lucy in the Sky. If the Beatles song is also known colloquially as simply "Lucy in the Sky", we can link to Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds in the hatnote too.
"William Shatner's version" is a cover (?) and doesn't have its own article. The video game isn't even known as "Lucy in the Sky with Dynamites" like the DAB page claims it is, according to the article, and it's simply a "bonus CD" which a limited edition of the game came with, not to mention it's "Lucy in the Sky with Dynamites", not "Lucy in the Sky". Things named "Lucy" after the Beatles song listed in the See also section are outside the scope of a disambiguation page (none of the articles indicate they are known alternatively as "... in the Sky" either), and can just be covered in Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.
Overall, there is nothing to disambiguate that a hatnote at Lucy in the Sky can't. Nardog ( talk) 22:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Prod that was removed. A possible autobio of a person from what I can tell is non notable with no reliable sources to be found. Wgolf ( talk) 22:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Only RS I can find (couple Texas Tribune pieces) mention him only in passing as speaking for one of his clients. Fails WP:GNG, violates WP:SPIP. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 22:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Much ado about not much. A series article for two films seems like overkill, and the article is basically repeats information already in the individual film articles, and adds some tables with incomplete information. BilCat ( talk) 21:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Obviously non-notable. The fact that it can be argued to incorporate particular sociological concepts does not mean that it inherits notability from those concepts. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 21:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. It looks like the article has been significantly updated since being listed at AFD and the consensus now is that it passes WP:BASIC (non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 02:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Article on a non-notable clergyman. No clear claim of notability and no sources found in a WP:BEFORE. RetiredDuke ( talk) 21:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted via PROD in 2017, contested at my user page. Restoring for community discussion. I didn't find much in the way of sources except this short article from the virtual US-Iran Embassy, so I'm leaning delete, but maybe there's sources in Farsi I didn't see. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
No evidence of notability, sources are routine listings of events or songs, not indepth independent sources about the artist. Fram ( talk) 09:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Sources found. (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian ( talk) 13:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Declined PROD. WP:BEFORE reveals no sources that come close to the necessary WP:CORPDEPTH required fro a company article. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 18:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Opting for AfD to allow users with access to offline sources (as the establishment is old) to chip in, however, searches in databases of such sources e.g. WorldCat don't look too promising. SITH (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Possible duplication of another article, List of most-disliked YouTube videos. Why do i say this? Most of the videos are not even indian, why is Baby here? Why is Its Everyday Bro here? Why is Marsha and the Bear: Recipe for Disaster here? TheWin RatHere! 16:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Never held any major roles, pretty much all the standard extra/minor character parts and is not notable for his business either. No coverage and the only mentions in papers (even in print copies that I searched through) are pretty standard like property transactions. The best article on him is the obit in playbill, however it still in no way establishes notability. Praxidicae ( talk) 16:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
No coverage beyond local sources and even those are mostly puff pieces, interviews or press releases. Praxidicae ( talk) 16:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Questionable notability. Claims in article about download numbers are suspect. Article has strong air of paid editing. Also see author's article as well: Chad Mureta which was created by a sockpuppet around the same time as this article. PureRED | talk to me | 16:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how this passes muster for an encyclopedia. Laun chba ller 16:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
<please do not delete the Spindle Magazine Wikipedia page. The company has change tremendously since its inception (when the page was created) and its Wikipedia needed to be updated to showcase the company's full range. I have added many citations so that any doubt as to relevance and authenticity is cleared. Thanks very much> Soldi2019 ( talk) 12:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Article appears to be an attempted
promotion for a new business radio station, with no evidence of notability. Two sources in the article (in Irish) are a fundraising request and a brief promotional announcement, and nothing further could be found. Editors have tried to pad the article with photos of the city the station is in and links to similar stations in the "See also" section, but none of those pertain to the station itself. ---
DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)
15:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Raidió na dTreabh is not a "business" but a internet radio station which hopes (and probably will get eventually in my opinion) a community radio license in Galway. ~~Darren J. Prior~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darren J. Prior ( talk • contribs) 15:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
It's not as if the station does not exist; I don't see what the problem is with leaving the page as a stub. ~~Darren J. Prior~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darren J. Prior ( talk • contribs) 17:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
One of the articles linked on the page, not two of them, is a fundraising request. The other two links are noteworthy I believe. ~~Darren J. Prior~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darren J. Prior ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Failing WP:GNG on the basis of lacking substantive coverage in reliable, independent sources. Most of the material is primary (authored by the subject) or based on reports by the subject without apparent editorial verification. As a side note, this has a long history of deletions, e.g. Comradephils or Philsville by various authors. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 12:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete Clearly not notable, fails WP:GNG. Hughesdarren ( talk) 12:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Citing instances of previous deletion as points is out of place. We should centre on the notability and reliable sources angle. One of the newspapers that carried his news is notable for reporting issues related to corruption. The final call is on the community to decide. Uche2018 ( talk) 16:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Horrible article with hardly any sources. Given the low participation in this debate, no prejudice against another nomination soon. Randykitty ( talk) 17:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable musician. Not finding any evidence of significant independent coverage of this musician. No significant reviews of his music or book. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 20:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Randykitty ( talk) 16:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Apparent subject of the article Francis John Patrick M. Vicente himself requested the article to be deleted. Also to ascertain if the subject's notability since admittedly most sources are primary sources or routine coverage on coaching assignment changes. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 03:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 02:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable local politician. The article incorrectly state she was on the New Jersey Superior Court, she was only a county surrogate. Neither that position, being mayor, or county freeholder gives her notability under WP:POLITICIAN Also, I believe WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies here too. Rusf10 ( talk) 02:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep
Djflem ( talk) 08:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Given the low participation in this debate, no prejudice against another nomination soon. Randykitty ( talk) 16:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Renomination following a no-consensus closure. This is WP:BLP of a local radio and television personality, which is still referenced almost entirely to content created by his own colleagues rather than genuinely independent evidence of encyclopedic notability. Six of the ten sources here are directly published by his own station or its co-owned sister stations in the same city; two more are duplications of the same wire service obituary bylined by a coworker of his; one is a very short, unsubstantive blurb on the website of his market's other television station, and the last is simply a Google Books directory entry for a book he wrote, which is being used solely to metaverify its own existence rather than showing that it achieved anything that would get him over WP:AUTHOR. None of this constitutes evidence that he had a nationalized notability claim for the purposes of getting a Wikipedia article, and media outlets don't get to self-publish their own employees into the "just because media coverage exists" brand of notability. Bearcat ( talk) 19:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Randykitty ( talk) 16:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. I tagged it for speedy deletion, but another administrator declined it because Delemotte is "associated with notable people". To the extent that's a valid reason for declining an A7, it's certainly not a valid reason for keeping an article. The subject has to be notable in their own right. Bbb23 ( talk) 17:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. I'm discounting the view of Narine1202 because, as the nominator notes, their history makes it likely that they are an undeclared paid editor. Sandstein 19:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
minor specialized company manufacturing automobile wiring components. The references are almost entirely either listings or mere notes, which is not enough for NCORP. Article by a spa, presumably an undeclared paid editor, but no actual proof of that DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I created ESMO Corporation page believing that it is a company that is worth having a wikipedia page.
Thank you and I will get back to you if I have more comments to add, Hope you will give this another thought and help me out.
Regars, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narine1202 ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Narine1202 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Narine1202 ( talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.
I was again reviewing wikipedia's policy regarding companies that are notable to be on wikipedia and sources that are regarded reliable secondary and what is significant coverage. I believe that some of the sources for ESMO Corporation page definitely fulfil these criterias. According to wikipedia, substantial coverage in independant sources includes e.g. a news article discussing a corporate merger/partnership, a source that illustrates the environmental impact of the corporation (and I assume economic impact will also be considered substantial coverage), and others, examples of which you can find in the article sources. So, I believe there is no problem with the company being notable or worth having a wikipedia page. Regarding the claim about WP:PAID, again I am not paid for creating this article and defending my hard work is I guess natural. Lastly, according to wikipedia's deletion policy if consensus is not reached within 7 days the article should stay in the mainspace as default. It is already 7 days the article is reviewed for deletion and I would like to finally know what is going to happen to the article. Again, if you think it is better to add more sources in Korean I will do that or if you think I need to edit the source if the tone is not neutral I will again do that. I just only require to give a certain answer as to what I am supposed to do to help this article be finally considered good enough to be on wikipedia. Thank you, Narine1202 Narine1202 ( talk)
The result was no consensus. I’m not sure that the added coverage really meets the threshold of the GNG in regards to significant independent coverage focused on Wall the person, but none of the earlier delete opinions factored in the added sourcing uncovered during the AfD, whereas it was considered in later keeps. If another AfD is filed in the future, it should deal with the quality of the coverage in these sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
No indication of encyclopedic notability. Priests, even rectors and deans, are not inherently notable. bd2412 T 00:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
*Delete , no indication of notability.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 09:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC) Probably KEEP. He does come up in news searches on "peter Wal" + Niagara. I think we need time to take a closer look and source this one.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
15:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
"This article creator has indeed irresponsibly started literally thousands of clergy sub-stubs like this one"
Hi I am "this article creator". Perhaps User:Reywas92 would care to read Wikipedia:Civility Bashereyre ( talk) 14:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. A possible merge elsewhere can be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty ( talk) 16:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I can't find any significant coverage, fails WP:BASIC. I believe that WP:BLP1E applies. wumbolo ^^^ 21:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The subject is very notable.
https://thehill.com/opinion/education/382560-exclusive-broward-countys-100-million-failure-on-school-safety?amp The Hill covered him.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/07/rubio-asks-feds-investigate-obama-school-discipline-rules-affected-parkland-shooting/ The Federalist. Senator Marco Rubio asked for an investigation over Preston's report.
https://www.weeklystandard.com/alice-b-lloyd/the-broward-blame-game?_amp=true Weekly Standard covering Preston.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/press-release-red-alert-politics-celebrates-30-under-30-award-winners Won a '30 under 30' award.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPef9pO44xA Appeared on the Daily Wire with Michael Knowles.
https://www.browardbeat.com/reports-broward-schools-sat-on-100-million-earmarked-for-school-safety/ Broward Beat
He also has 12,000 followers on his Twitter page, and his tweets gain significant attraction. There are other students from Parkland that are far less notable and have active pages, ex: Alfonso Calderon (activist)
Chrisrow ( talk) 23:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC) Chrisrow
So can we close the discussion? Chrisrow ( talk) 00:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Chrisrow
addresses the topic directly and in detail(per GNG). Therefore Kenneth Preston does not pass WP:GNG. On top of that, this falls squarely into WP:BLP1E. If a new article is created specifically about this investigation, then this material can be merged there instead. — MarkH21 ( talk) 04:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Randykitty ( talk) 16:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Subject does not pass WP:GNG pr WP:NACADEMIC. A Web of Science ( standard metric) search returned 13 papers with few citations (13, 13, 4, 4, 1, 1, 0, 0, ..., 0). A Scopus search returned 9 papers and textbooks with few citations (27, 22, 7, 4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 0). These are typically too few to pass #1 of WP:NACADEMIC and there is no evidence of passing any of the other criteria. — MarkH21 ( talk) 09:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. His research, especially considering that Google Scholar includes non-peer-reviewed sources in the citation count and that discrete mathematics & algorithms tend to have higher citation counts, does not seem to be influential enough for criterion 1 of WP:NACADEMIC. Looking through the MathSciNet reviews, there isn't much evidence of having
developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. — MarkH21 ( talk) 16:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.or Criterion 4:
The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.It definitely does not match criterion 2 or 3.
Regarding Criterion 4 of
WP:NACADEMIC, the specific note that you are applying says: several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education
. Indeed, I see that Discrete Mathematics and Foundations of Mathematical Analysis are used in multiple syllabi, with a two or three uses of Algorithms, Applications Programming in C++, and Applications Programming in ANSI C each. That's two books that could be (arguably) "widely used", but even with those I don't see "several books" being so. —
MarkH21 (
talk)
21:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
of multiple independent periodical articles or reviewsis a supplementary requirement in addition to it being recognized as
a significant or well-known work. I don't think it has that status though (and I do know it – I used it when I was an undergraduate!). It's an undergraduate textbook with 66 citations on Google Scholar that isn't commonly referred to in literature (unlike e.g. Algebra by Lang, Algebraic Geometry by Hartshorne, the Princeton Lectures in Analysis series by Stein and Shakarchi, etc.). — MarkH21 ( talk) 21:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. It is not an attempt to intentionally and inappropriately misinterpret the criteria or game the system. — MarkH21 ( talk) 21:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. There seems to be good consensus that this person is currently not notable (this is even asserted by several "keep" !votes) and that this may be a case of TOOSOON. However, keeping a copy in an editor's sandbox is not a good solution for two reasons. First of all and most importantly, the copy paste to User:Mary Mark Ockerbloom/sandbox/Natani Notah violates our copyright, because the edit history has been lost. Second, articles deleted at AfD should not be kept in a user's personal space indefinitely. There is nothing wrong with making a note to self to revisit this yearly and if this person at some point becomes notable, it will be easy enough to undelete the current version and work from there. Because of the copyright issue, I will also delete the current sandbox version. Randykitty ( talk) 15:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Not yet a notable artist. Sources are either not independent, not indepth, or blogs and the like. No Google News results, no other sources which could help establish notability. Fram ( talk) 13:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep for now I generally believe that this individual, while doing good work, is not notable yet to the point that she merits her own page. I generally look to see if the sources are national or international in scope. However, I appreciate the work being done on this page and would encourage the authors to continue. Leaving it up will enable them to do that. If, in another 6 months or so there has been no updates or edits of value, a RFD is approrpriate. Coffee312 ( talk) 21:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 15:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
No evidence that the subject (this particular John Dwyer) satisfies WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. There are almost no independent sources on the subject at all, while MathSciNet only returns his PhD thesis with no citations. Web of Science and Scopus searches returns many John Dwyers but none in mathematics or computer science. — MarkH21 ( talk) 09:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Debate suffered from a lack of participation. No prejudice to taking this to AfD again in a month or so. Randykitty ( talk) 15:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Unreferenced personal essay Rathfelder ( talk) 20:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty ( talk) 15:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Unremarkable Film Festival of local importance, Fails WP:Event. Lacks any sources Grey Wanderer ( talk) 00:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
i guess im just confused...how "remarkable" would sato have to become to have a page? -historic66 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historic66 ( talk • contribs) 17:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 15:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Not notable at the current time. Has been part of a few web series but mainly notable as being part of the "Bratayley" YouTube channel which, due to lack of coverage, isn't enough for her to have an article. Andise1 ( talk) 20:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was Speedy deleted WP:G4. (non-admin closure) Ceethekreator ( talk) 10:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Creator who created the recently deleted (several times over) "Jayanta Nath" has now created a filmography page for the same person. Going to copy the reasoning from the
other AfD:
Non-notable singer/director, their only supposedly notable film (Hriday Kapowa Gaan) hasn't received the necessary coverage to pass WP:NFILM, nor have the others, so fails the various N criteria for creative people
(thanks
Praxidicae)
Dreamy Jazz 🎷
talk to me |
my contributions
08:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Randykitty ( talk) 15:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Only one entry even has an article. Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 15:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was Draftify. Given that the subject appears to meet WP:PROF, draftifying is probably the best solution. Randykitty ( talk) 14:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Failing WP:GNG and WP:PROF. A researcher who publishes. Run-of-the-mill. Essentially a very bloated WP:AUTOBIO that summarises their published papers. WP:NOTWEBHOST also applies. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others.Thus, h-index numbers are not enough to establish notability when other evidence is absent. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 23:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#1. No valid rationale for deletion advanced. If you want to propose a merge, discuss it on the talk page; see Wikipedia:Merge#Propose a merger. – Joe ( talk) 08:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Adequately covered in the Rising Star Cave article - this page is just CV enhancing puffery and could sensibly be deleted Bledwith ( talk) 07:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
MERGE Actually I think this a merge with a redirect. There's not a long term use of this term outside of the context of this specific cave and excavation. Bledwith ( talk) 07:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 14:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Appears to have no achievements to meet WP:NBOX and I have found no significant coverage in RS except for routine fight announcements and reports. Delete. Just Chilling ( talk) 00:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 14:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Olson doesn't appear to be notable. I found this student newspaper which confirms that he's an academic at SAIT Polytechnic who does voice acting as a hobby, but on its own that's not enough. I couldn't find any other reliable sources covering him. I don't see that he meets either WP:NPROF or WP:NACTOR. Huon ( talk) 23:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Miss World Sri Lanka. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Whilst a winner at Miss Sri Lanka 2015 did not place at Miss World and no evidence of any notable activity since partipating in Miss World Dan arndt ( talk) 10:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 14:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
GNG fail. Unsourced and I do not see good sourcing in a search. Also, possibly the most promotional article I have ever seen, although that is not a strict criteria for deletion. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 04:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 14:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think this meets any of our notability criteria. There's no enough in-depth sources for WP:GNG, WP:NORG (as a group), or WP:NARTIST (as performers). The sources in the article are a) a blog entry from a local brewery b) a decent article from a local paper c) a couple-sentence fluff piece in NPR and d) a defunct biking enthusiast periodical (with a limited scope if it's the same one referred to here).
It's not enough to hang an article on, and I couldn't find any more in-depth sources when I searched. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Kbabej ( talk) 00:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
There is no assertion of notability. Per a WP:BEFORE search, there just isn't coverage in RS. Kbabej ( talk) 03:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Pure Fancruft. In the Mega Man series, Robot Masters are the names of the enemies who act as bosses at the end of stages, and this is a big list of all of them, effectively being a list of bosses from the Mega Man series. Not bad info per se, just not here. This belongs on a fan wiki. Robot Master can be handled in a single paragraph on the Mega Man page, or game by game, not an exhaustive list on its own. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 02:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Does not meet notability criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. References given do not discuss him significantly, and Google search for the name does not come up with anything that does, except for a couple of newspaper articles discussing controversy surrounding him. ... discospinster talk 00:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Kofi Danso is my first article creation, I am willing to improve it to save it from deletion. Please advise. Thanks guys Straightshoot101 ( talk) 08:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello. No claim of significance but A7 does not apply to books. I am not sure this book has even been released. Thanks and regards, Biwom ( talk) 00:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable actor. Was previously nominated for deletion, and deleted. Natg 19 ( talk) 00:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Had been previously deleted; non-notable minor league baseball player. Fails WP:NBASEBALL. Pozzi.c ( talk) 02:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)