The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 coverage other than press releases, promotional features and passing mentions; fails
WP:NBIO. Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs) 22:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep (and clean up), CEO of major film company. Lots of nontrivial mentions, e.g.
[1],
[2]. —Kusma (
t·
c) 09:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
KeepSources like this show notability as does being the head of a major film studio and the honorary degree he got.
Josalm64rc (
talk) 22:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Why is it not possible to improve the single issues instead of deleting the whole article? According to Variety [… Moszkowicz, Constantin’s head of film and TV, has become the face of Germany’s leading independent producer-distrib in recent years, overseeing such diverse concerns as film and TV production, domestic and international distribution, licensing, acquisitions and marketing. He has worked on more than 100 features, serving as producer, exec producer or production company head on such commercial and critical hits as Soenke Wortmann’s “Maybe… Maybe Not,” Michael Herbig’s “Manitou’s Shoe,” Caroline Link’s Oscar-winning “Nowhere in Africa,” Tom Tykwer’s “Perfume: The Story of a Murderer,” Oliver Hirschbiegel’s “Downfall” and Uli Edel’s “The Baader Meinhof Complex.” …]
[3] Just in Variety there are 248 articles about Martin Moszkowicz:
[4]Parola per parola (
talk) 04:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Well, about 240 of these are just that - no more than passing mentions, and effectively worthless. However, that still leaves at least half a dozen more substantial articles, which should suffice. The Variety archive clearly was a good place to look. - I'll leave this open for another day or so and then withdraw if no dissent emerges. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs) 16:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)reply
(NB,
Parola per parola - it's useful to actually provide this type of source when starting an article. Why you would put this into mainspace as reliant on the crap sourcing originally used is mysterious. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs) 16:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC))reply
Thank you for your notes. Next time I'll try to be more effective and use the sources like this one [
[5]] --
Parola per parola (
talk) 17:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Vanamonde (
Talk) 05:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I cannot find any basis for notability on this. It's been flagged as needing references for almost five years, and only has two. One reference is a college newspaper article
[6] on a different topic (interviewing one of the co-creators, Mike Henry) with only one sentence on this show ("Henry and his brother Patrick also created ‘Kicked in the Nuts,” a popular and well-received entry in 2003 for Channel101.com, a short film-oriented Web site.") The other is a dead-link with no archive on the wayback machine. I independently found one other passing mention: a single sentence in the obituary
[7] for the other co-creator Patrick Henry ("The pair produced a list of short films and the web series “Kicked in the Nuts,” a spoof on hidden camera shows."). Apart from that, nada.
The fact that it was alluded to in a Family Guy episode would initially suggest that it was notable enough, if it was referred to in a mainstream TV show... until you realize that the episode that referred to it was itself written by the Kicked in the Nuts co-creators.
It's been marked as needing sources for almost five years. I don't think it's going to get any; I certainly can't find any. And given that it's an Internet-based show, any sources would be likely to show up on the Internet.
I was going to take a stab at improving it, but apart from an infobox and an external link to IMDB
[8], I don't see much of a way to do so, There simply isn't much of anything written about it; which is another way of saying it does not meet notability standards.
TJRC (
talk) 22:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete I believe this is better considered as a short-film and not a "web series". Regardless, there is inadequate sourcing (though it is on Youtube).
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 20:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete There isn’t much about this series I could find, imo lacks
WP:GNG.
1989 (
talk) 20:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.
RL0919 (
talk) 00:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The only "coverage" I can find are funding announcements and other
WP:MILL stuff. Fails
WP:GNG possibly just too soon.
Praxidicae (
talk) 20:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete as highly likely
paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for this.
MER-C 16:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - I do not believe this company meets
WP:CORPDEPTH as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The article has been created by an editor with a likely conflict of interest and is just a free advertisement for the startup company.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 12:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete unless it is completely rewritten, for the reasons espoused above
Sam-2727 (
talk) 16:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
Duttapukur. No prejudice to recreation if coverage can be found.
Randykitty (
talk) 09:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 20:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Duttapukur where it is mentioned. High schools are typically kept at AfD but in this case, I really can't find coverage that would satisfy
WP:GNG.
Pichpich (
talk) 18:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 evidence nor claim of notability.
WP:BEFORE shows passing mentions, nothing with biographical detail. Previous AFD was actually the same guy when he was a student.
David Gerard (
talk) 12:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete when the previous keep votes argued the person was notable because of how fast he got his Ph.D. to me that is a screaming sign that he is not notable. People are not notable because they get educated fast, and often people who plow through subjects fast do not have a deep understanding of them. OK, maybe I am biased because it was 9 years between when I started my bachelors degree and completed it, but still nothing shows this person is notable.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 06:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep hot young intellectual needs a better article. Note incoming link from
Quadratic voting, a concept Weyl co-created. Recent book was widely reviewed - I added a few of the reviews.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 19:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)strike vote of sockpuppet.
Onel5969TT me 03:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The cites you added seem to be material for the book's notability - do they cover Weyl himself in any biographical detail? -
David Gerard (
talk) 19:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
not in depth, but multiple
WP:RS do cover his ideas in depth. Page just needs an editor, or just keep it and wait for it to be crowd-sourced.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 20:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC) strike apparent sockpuppet -
David Gerard (
talk) 13:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Source analysis
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 20:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep The book he co-authored is notable (that's a start),
quadratic voting, which he co-invented is also notable. There's not a lot of references that focus a bit more on Weyl specifically but there are some (including
some in French). I think he passes
WP:GNG barely but certainly
WP:PROF.
Pichpich (
talk) 18:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete spam for non-notable company —
RHaworth (
talk·contribs) 11:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱 20:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
There's no claim of notability (or references) in the article and a Google search turned up almost nothing about him, let alone anything reliable and verifiable that would support notability.
Alansohn (
talk) 19:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. I don't know why this page was never CSD'ed to begin with, page never had references, but not sure if we can do that now.
Sir Joseph(talk) 20:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Could have been speedied as A7 or BLPPROD'ed since there are no references. Now that it's at AfD, we need to check if there's any significant coverage of this man: I did not find any and I think he plainly fails
WP:GNG.
Pichpich (
talk) 18:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 independently notable. Not legitimate, so no claim to the throne. Scandal was about her mother, so no need for a separate article about this 9-year-old girl. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 19:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Her notability is not demonstrated by any claim to the throne but by the fact that she has been the subject of sustained interest by historians and biographers, as attested by the references provided in the article. There’s ‘no need’ for much of Wikipedia, but we judge notability on sourcing, meaning this clearly passes.
Mccapra (
talk) 22:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
None of the sources cited are about her but about her mother. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 22:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes the sources are all books about her mother, but they all make reference to the daughter. The girl’s entire life is known through these sources. AFAIK every book about her mother discusses the daughter means so she has received sustained coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. The girl was not historically significant, but per our guidelines she was notable.
Mccapra (
talk) 05:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete her mother was notable, nothing suggests that this 9 year old girl ever rose to the level of notability.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 00:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
… apart from all of the history books with her life in them. Not even cited in the article is
Margaret Crosland's book, which would also support all of this, across 8 pages. Then there are the books on the privately collected works of Boucher, the books that are in French … Mccapra is right. We keep stuff because it is properly documented objectively and in depth by multiple people.
Subjective ideas of fame and importance are no more the rule for historical figures than they are for atolls in the Solomon Islands and species of beetle. People suggested
fame and importance, years ago. It was wrong.
Uncle G (
talk) 07:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge briefly to her mother, who was an extremely notable royal mistress. She is certainly not independently notable. Even if she had been legitimate, a princess being educated in a convent would hardly be notable by the age of 9.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment I think you are mixing up significance with notability. There is no argument at all that she was significant. However if you look at
WP:BASIC you’ll see she definitely passes our notability threshold.
Mccapra (
talk) 03:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Regarded by a king as his stepdaughter. Definitely notable. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 10:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep sufficient coverage, though this could possibly be handled in a section of her mother's article.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 20:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep I think merging to her mother would lead to a rather lengthy digression so keeping a (well-referenced) separate article is most appropriate.
Pichpich (
talk) 19:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —
JJMC89 (
T·C) 06:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 12:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete no evidence of notability.
GiantSnowman 12:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per GS –
Levivich 17:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
Encantadia. Lacks evidence of separate notability.
RL0919 (
talk) 00:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Non-notable fantasy character, not to mention that there is no mention of the character's real-world background and cultural impact in order to establish its notability. I don't mind its inclusion as a separate article in Wikipedia, but unless OP provides anything to back up its notability, the deletion request still remains.
Blake Gripling (
talk) 05:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep I don't think that it's necessary for an article to have a cultural impact if it's literally a piece of the culture itself. This article is creating a more in depth understanding of the story line it comes from, and adding that information to Wikipedia --regardless of it's cultural significance-- seems appropriate to me. The character was created for the story line, which is in itself, culturally significant. Keep, because it is a good piece of information, even if it is rather insignificant, to have in the Wikipedia database.
BluePankow✉ 14:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The following parts, "it is a good piece of information" and "The character was created for the story line, which is in itself, culturally significant", are not good "keep" arguments. I would recommend instead finding coverage of the character in third-party, reliable sources to prove notability to make a stronger argument to keep the article.
Aoba47 (
talk) 02:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk) 17:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect to Encantadia as there does not appear to be enough coverage from third-party, reliable sources to support notability. It could be a viable search term though so I think a redirect would be better and more helpful than outright deletion.
Aoba47 (
talk) 03:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱 20:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Lacks "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and so it fails the GNG. The information suggests a player who is not in top-level competition and so fails the terms of WP:NBASKETBALL.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 12:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk) 17:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Just passing and routine mentions (since he plays in a pro league that is bound to happen), he fails
WP:NHOOPS all in all a delete.
Josalm64rc (
talk) 21:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Per nom. Fails GNG.
Barca (
talk) 23:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
WP:NSPORT requires athletes to have competed "at the highest level" which the Universiade clearly is not.
Papaursa (
talk) 15:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 child writer, with no
properly sourced evidence of passing
WP:AUTHOR. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability test requires evidence of significance, such as winning major literary awards and/or having received enough
reliable source critical attention to clear
WP:GNG. But this is referenced entirely to unreliable
primary sources such as Amazon and GoodReads and a press release on the
self-published website of the school he attends, with not a shred of real independent third party media coverage shown at all. This is not how you reference a writer as notable enough for an encyclopedia article.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - No in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources, so he doesn't pass
WP:GNG, and he clearly doesn't meet
WP:NAUTHOR.
Onel5969TT me 17:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - It is said 'writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles', but it is not highlighted that the author is 13, something that should be 'notable'. Ilincev was on the
List of books written by children or teenagers, and all of those that are listed have their own wiki articles, even if they only wrote a single book (example:
Faiza Guene). So, Ilincev should be included. As to the so-called 'unreliability' of the sources, it should be shown that these were used to reference personal information about the author, and the school websites' article was written by one of their administrators, not by Ilincev himself, of course. As well as that, the author is the only Czech child author. Is that not notable?
AlphArcher (
talk) 17:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
You are erroneously conflating subjective criteria of importance with notability.
Notability is not fame nor importance. It is, indeed, what we came up with years ago when we found that
Project:fame and importance did not work. A biographical subject gets a biographical article if there is in-depth documentation of the subject's life and works from multiple sources with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, from which to construct a biography in accordance with our content policies. It's that simple, and a good argument for having a biography, that will actually hold water where subjective evaluations of importance will not, is to cite multiple good sources that document this person's life and/or works in depth.
Uncle G (
talk) 19:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Notability, for Wikipedia purposes, is not "has done something that I find interesting" — it is "has received
reliable source coverage in media for it". Even a person who was actually the Second Coming of Jesus Christ wouldn't get a biographical article about him on Wikipedia until after media have written about his claim.
Bearcat (
talk) 21:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete fails
WP:SIGCOV.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 17:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Note to ivoters and closing administrator: E.M.Gregory is a blocked sock.
Lightburst (
talk) 12:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep - Being a child author is rare, and AlphArcher makes a good point in saying the notability of Ilincev publishing a novel at that age is sufficient to warrant an article.
Threyed (
talk) 18:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
User:Threyed, Welcome to Wikipedia. I can see that this is your very first edit. It takes a while to understand how Wikipedia works, so allow me to suggest that you read
WP:NOTAVOTE and
WP:GNG, and understand that while your comment may be true, it is necessary to support opinions with
WP:RS.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 18:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
User:E.M.Gregory Thank you for informing me. I still think my opinion should count, but I was just reaffirming the obvious fact that AlphArcher pointed out while looking through the Articles for Deletion section, that of the comparison to other child authors.
Threyed (
talk) 18:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
No matter how "rare" something may be, a person becoming notable for it requires him to have received media coverage.
Bearcat (
talk) 21:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete being a teenager who gets works published is not read enough to give default notability. We need third party coverage which is lacking here.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 06:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱 20:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:BAND. Defunct grindcore metal band, whose entire output appears to be two limited-release split 7" singles with other bands, and three song contributions to three non-notable compilation/tribute albums. Entirely sourced to user-generated websites like Discogs and Rate Your Music, and the usual metal wikias, and no better reliable sources have been found – no demonstration of notability at all.
Richard3120 (
talk) 15:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk) 17:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Per nom.
Barca (
talk) 23:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.
RL0919 (
talk) 00:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Promotional - the current article is a
WP:COATRACK for Ryan D'Arcy's research.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 16:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Brain vital signs is a new neuroscience technology that is groundbreaking because it's newly developed by several neuro-researchers from Simon Fraser University including Dr. Ryan D'Arcy. The neuro-technology is used in several clinical studies by other non-related researchers. It's no different from when Elon Musk and his teams develop something new and innovative. Musk's Wiki entry includes all his companies/initiatives, each entities with its own wiki page. I cross referenced Wiki's deletion policy and don't see that this entry incurs any infractions? Info is correct and referenced and sourced. Can you advise how you're seeing differently and how I can revise to address your concerns? Keep in mind I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so not well versed in coding etc. so apologies for format issues.
YoEmFuji (
talk) 17:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
User:YoEmFuji 10:42, 1 August 2019 (PST)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk) 17:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep There are a few bits of language that are puffery but those can be removed. The article cites both academic and popular sources that appear to support
WP:GNG. I read
WP:COAT but don't see how it applies here: a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely — the nominal subject is the framework, and that's what the article discusses. editing to add: I'll leave my previous comment, but I'm glad some editors with experience on medical articles showed up to comment; I defer to their expertise.
Schazjmd(talk) 17:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete – Overemphasis on one research team, overemphasis on one research teams' primary studies, and promotional. I'm not seeing
secondary medical sources that we could summarize, otherwise the article could be saved. – Thjarkur(talk) 20:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per Thjarkur. On topics pertaining to medicine, we have to be particularly vigilant in avoiding churnalism and other kinds of uncritical coverage.
XOR'easter (
talk) 21:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per Thjarkur. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and is just an advertisement for the scientific framework.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 12:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage in multiple indepenent sources.----
Pontificalibus 11:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Vanamonde (
Talk) 05:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:MUSICBIO. Previous discusson determined that they had multiple albums on a notable label, but I don't see the notable label either.
Walter Görlitz (
talk) 04:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk) 16:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete I checked Napalm Records and they aren't on their roster. It appears the previous AfD had faulty information.
Simonm223 (
talk) 18:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Participants in the discussion do not believe there are sources that are
independent and
reliable to support notability.
RL0919 (
talk) 00:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)reply
No true in depth coverage, fails
WP:NACTOR, nothing much has changed since the last AFD in terms of available sources.
Praxidicae (
talk) 16:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. This was nominated for G4 speedy, and I (reluctantly) declined speedy deletion because this new version is substantially different from the original, deleted version. However, IMO the new version still does not meet
WP:GNG or
WP:BIO. If it is deleted again, I suggest the deleting admin consider salting the title, since it has been deleted and recreated multiple times. --
MelanieN (
talk) 16:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The content if I remember is slightly different, yeah, so I get the decline but coverage wise it's still more or less the same, the previous nom was better than mine, so everyone should just look at that ;)
Praxidicae (
talk) 16:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete, As per my comments on the previous AfD - fails
WP:ANYBIO, the references provided are from 'celebrity' websites (with uncertain independent editorial oversight - more like fan sites) which only relate to her appearance as a contestant on an Indian reality television show.
Dan arndt (
talk) 23:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. No RS and quick check just reveals more social media cruft.
Agricola44 (
talk) 16:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete as per comments above. This has been created too many times and poorly each time. This feels like some
WP:UPE is happening here. Ravensfire (
talk) 16:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Creator feels like a sock of
Thiyagasothy given
this and other evidence, will file at SPI after lunch. Ravensfire (
talk) 17:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 reliable sources offered--but there is a website link, so BLPPROD is out, I guess. A kind of claim of importance is made, but it's weak, and maybe A7 is out. So here's the old-fashioned way: there is no proof of notability whatsoever, not via
WP:GNG and not via
WP:NMUSIC. No record deal, no hits, no coverage, no nothing--and it reads like an autobiography.
Drmies (
talk) 15:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Due to reasons above. Also, a Google search shows very little sign of notability - some social media pages with ~3000 followers, and a self-made website.
2A00:23C4:3ADE:0:384B:3701:FAB2:E84D (
talk) 15:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. No claim of notability and no independent coverage.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 20:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 about former footballer who made a total of 1 appearance in Hungary's fully-pro
Nemzeti Bajnokság I. Although this appears to satisfy the bright-line of
WP:NFOOTBALL, it does not because there is longstanding consensus that a footballer who played a minimal amount in a fully-pro league but comprehensively fails
WP:GNG does not actually satisfy NFOOTBALL (see e.g.,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phakamani Mngadi). All of the online coverage in French-, Hungarian-, and English-language sources appears to be routine (database entries or transfer announcements, with the exception of one interview with a Luxembourgish sports blog and a post by his employer - which I believe are considered primary sources).
Jogurney (
talk) 15:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Lacks significant coverage and so it fails the GNG. There is no narrative beyond a few brief notes and there appears to be no potential for any worthwhile expansion.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 19:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Delete all rather than redirect, as no specific redirect target(s) have been identified. If people find suitable targets later they can add appropriate redirects at their discretion.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 16:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Article fails to meet
WP:GNG. We don't even have enough biographical information to write this person's full name. Mehta is a very common surname in India, for those of you who didn't know.
This RfC already confirmed that SSGs like
WP:CRIN do not supersede the GNG.
Dee03 15:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Can you please answer the question I have posed you there, regarding "extra prose"? I still have no idea what the answer would be.
Bobo. 15:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete all. I would be happy to see them all redirected to relevant lists, probably club-based, if such exist or can be created within a reasonable timespan. It does look as if the cricket project has a major problem with the number of these miniature articles that I've seen on this deletion page since I adopted it only yesterday. As I have said in several deletion discussions below, for football (my sport) or hockey or cycling or paragliding or whatever, an article must have narrative so that the reader (who?) has something to read. These "articles" are nothing more than brief notes taken from a glance at a dubious online page containing scorecard statistics. I see that the Cricket Archive site is again in evidence, usually as an external link only. It is paywalled but I am told that it is an unreliable source, self-published by a private society. Unless you are a member of the club or are prepared to pay an exorbitant subscription fee, you don't get to see stuff that is any event available upon the professionally run Cricinfo or in books like Wisden and Playfair. Okay, you have to pay for the last two but at least you get a good book for your outlay. All of these "articles" lack significant coverage and fail the GNG, as
Dee03 rightly points out. As he also says, Mehta is a very common Indian name and is among others the name of a famous
dirigent, namely
Zubin Mehta.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 19:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I cannot be certain of how up-to-date it is, but
List of Uttar Pradesh cricketers at least looks more comprehensive than many other teams' pages.
Bobo. 19:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete all Cricket has some of the largest collections of articles on people who almost nothing is known about of any sports. We are finally making headway against some of the filler articles on Wikipedia.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect to the relevant state/team list pages as appropriate - or delete if that option is considered unsuitable for some reason. The lack of biographical information means that the chances of finding in depth sources about any of these chaps is remote in the extreme. If that information does show up then we could reconsider the articles - a redirect makes this easy to establish. Given that that they each played just one match that we know of - with the exception of Narain who played in two - the chances of finding sources just now seem remote at best. Given that only Ajantha has a page on any other wiki that's linked (Tamil - contains no more than the en-wiki page) this seems even less likely.
Blue Square Thing (
talk) 12:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
delete all: per
my comment on similar bundled AfD. Existence with verification is one thing, and notability is other. These players fail
WP:GNG big time. Even if the subject passes some subject specific guideline, it doesnt mean we must have an article on it. All the coverage I could find came from the websites that try to cover everything n anything related to cricket, this doesnt establish notability. And due to the lack of persistent
significant coverage, we can delete the articles. —usernamekiran
(talk) 06:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete I think consensus is clear that the various persons with (full name and details unknown) and one (or two, in a few of these) first-class appearance are not inherently notable, regardless of what CRIN may say.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 20:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 about former footballer who made a total of 1 appearance in Trinidad & Tobago's potentially fully-pro
TT Pro League (however, per the discussion at
WT:FPL, I don't think the sources demonstrate the league is fully-pro). Although this appears to satisfy the bright-line of
WP:NFOOTBALL, it does not because there is longstanding consensus that a footballer who played a minimal amount in a fully-pro league but comprehensively fails
WP:GNG does not actually satisfy NFOOTBALL (see e.g.,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phakamani Mngadi). All of the online coverage is routine (database entries or transfer announcements).
Jogurney (
talk) 15:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Whether he scrapes by NFOOTY (doubtful in this case as nom points out) is immaterial as NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of GNG. Per my assessment and search we don't have anything close to meeting GNG here.
Icewhiz (
talk) 15:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Lacks significant coverage and so it fails the GNG. There is no narrative beyond a couple of brief notes and there appears to be no potential for any worthwhile expansion.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 19:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - one sole appearance many years ago does not make up for the massive GNG failure.
GiantSnowman 07:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 has a long history of recreation and deletion. Most recently, it was
WP:G4'd, but I've backed that out and posting here per
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 1. This is an administrative action only; I offer no opinion on the outcome. --
RoySmith(talk) 14:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete and salt. Blatant spam, as with every other iteration. Guy (
Help!) 22:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
If this page has failed
WP:GNG, I would have deleted it myself and really would like you to review in detail. I am not sure why there is a delete vote without reviewing detailed page history and a quick google search. As
Mkativerata has said
here, The case for notability here is blindingly obvious.
Meeanaya (
talk) 05:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy and strongest keep, if content is advert, it is not just the reason to salt and burn, content was again edited by a new editor
User:Tortew which was overlooked by admin in July 2019. The content was perfect when it comes to
this version. As Agarwal is one of the most notable entrepreneur in India, you just think of all reliable news references in India and you will find his name organically in all reliable news sources over the last 5 years. He not easily pass
WP:GNG and deserves a speedy keep. AS
User:Mkativerata has said at
this undeletion review, The case for notability here is blindingly obvious:
BBC,
Bloomberg,
Bloomberg profile,
Financial Times (UK) profile. Here are a few sources if you dont agree (These all news links are covering Ritesh Agarwal in-depth and not just his company, No articles in this list are written by any contributors/guests, they are written ONLY by staff)
He is also the co-chairman,
Confederation of Indian Industry for National Committee on Tourism & Hospitality and Chairman,
Confederation of Indian Industry National Committee on e-commerce. In 2016, NDTV's inaugural Unicorn Awards recognized Oyo Rooms as their Dream Chaser of the Year. In 2017, he was honored with the “Gaurav Samman” by the Government of Haryana. The award was given to people of Haryanvi origin residing outside of Haryana who have made significant contributions in various fields. In 2018, he was named Best Entrepreneur by International Institute of Hotel Management in cooperation with International Hospitality Council. He was also listed in Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award- Services Dataquest magazine named him IT Person of the Year at their ICT Awards.
He has been named on several young leader lists and awards including: The Economic Times 40 under 40 (2016); Fortune 40 under 40 (2016); Forbes 30 under 30 (2016, 2018); Barclays Hurun India Rich List for Youngest Entrepreneur under 40 (2018); and CBC-TV 18 India Business Leader Award for Young Turk of the Year (2019).
Restore it to
this version and lock it for extended user edit for one year.
Meeanaya (
talk) 04:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. The subject of the article is obviously notable. There is clearly significant coverage in reliable sources:
BBC,
Bloomberg,
Bloomberg profile,
Financial Times (UK) profile. The aricle could be better but it is not in the irretrievably spam category that warrants deletion.--
Mkativerata (
talk) 09:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep, enough sources to pass general notability.
1.39.212.15 (
talk) 09:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Sources linked by Mkativerata clearly indicate notability.
SmartSE (
talk) 11:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep sufficient coverage (
BBC in particular), and current version is not too promotional.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 20:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Coverage in local sources but no widespread coverage to indicate enduring significance. Per
WP:EVENTCRITERIA"Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes)...are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance."Polyamorph (
talk) 14:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus.
Randykitty (
talk) 15:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
No sources are cited to show that the topic is notable. In fact, no sources are cited that mention the topic at all. This may be the same topic previously discussed at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Publish and be damned, which was unanimously agreed to be deleted in 2005 and was deleted again in 2006. —
BarrelProof (
talk) 23:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. After sifting through a few pages of results for "Publish and Be Damned" + "publishing fair" on Google, the only in-depth coverage I found was
this and
this, which isn't enough to pass GNG. I also found some blog coverage, but no other reliable sources. –
Lord Bolingbroke (
talk) 05:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm changing my !vote to neutral based on the sources found by
E.M.Gregory. Unfortunately, the databases I have available to me do not index The Guardian or Artforum, so I'm not able to evaluate whether these additional sources provide significant coverage or are just routine coverage (as
BarrelProof seems to think). –
Lord Bolingbroke (
talk) 22:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Most of the identified sources, which apparently took some effort to dig up (by someone who thinks the article should be deleted), are just minor promotional material and routine announcements of what's happening around town. The only source linked in the article is identified as an "event notice" and is only 12 sentences long (and has an ungrammatical sentence). Clearly this was a pretty minor event. We should not have articles about every little fair that is held at the local high school gymnasium church crypt, which seems to be roughly what this article is. This article is doomed to perma-stub status and should be deleted. —
BarrelProof (
talk) 16:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
permanent stub status is a common and unobjectionable feature of Wikipedia. Many bried articles are worth keeping. this one does need improvement.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 16:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I object. I find it very objectionable. If something is so non-notable that even after looking for sources we can't find anything that really discusses the subject in detail, and if that situation looks like it is never going to change (e.g. because the topic is about some little annual workshop series that is now completely defunct, so that no one is likely to ever write about it in detail in the future in any reputable publication), then we should not maintain a perma-stub about it on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not be used as a vanity press, obscure fan site, or personal blogging site. —
BarrelProof (
talk) 21:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)reply
It is always a good idea to look at the most recent updates before opining. And, when sources have been found, doing a fresh
WP:BEFORE search can be enlightening. I speak as an editor who often changes my opinion after someone sources a page that my initial
WP:BEFORE could not source.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 16:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I did review the latest changes before making that comment. —
BarrelProof (
talk) 23:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
p.s. - we really should have a stand alone article on Wellington and his phrase.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 11:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
There is already an article on Wellington and it discusses his phrase. —
BarrelProof (
talk) 16:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes, I am aware. What I intended to suggest is that an article on the subsequent uses to which the phrase has been put would be worth having.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 16:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - There is plenty written about this event. I did a simple article search in my library's article database for the event and its curators and found seven (7) references, e.g. Zappaterra, Y. (2006). Punk publishing. Design Week, 21(30), 36-36. I find the dismissive tone above "about some little annual workshop series that is now completely defunct" objectionable. Wikipedia is the ideal venue for such information. It is what many people come here for. Emphatic Keep.
Gerntrash (
talk) 14:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Furthermore, it was cited in this doctoral dissertation: Sullivan, Molly E. The Multivalent Platforms of Alternative Art Publications as Agents of Authentic Cultural Change, University of Southern California, 2010.Gerntrash (
talk) 14:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
*
WP:HEY nice job of sourcing by
User:Gerntrash. And a reminder that the fact that a book fair is now defunct is not an argument for deleting it, we have thousands or defunct things in
Category:Former entities, thousands more in
Category:Defunct media and other similar categories. Contrary to Nom's assertion that "because the topic is about some little annual workshop series that is now completely defunct... no one is likely to ever write about it in detail in the future in any reputable publication" people do continue to publish copiously about many small defunct events.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 15:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
The sources are all very short pieces that have no by-line in sources that seem to be mostly user-generated such as imdb, haber life, kimnereli where you can email your bio for publication etc etc. The sites seem to have no staff. This is a case of way
WP:TOOSOON. Nothing in a before search of interest
Dom from Paris (
talk) 12:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC).reply
Keep it is not a valid reason for me because there is no such thing as every news headline will be long, and when it comes to IMDb, there may be only known people in IMDb.
Paulahted(T) 8 August 2019 (UTC) —
Paulahted (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Paulahted: the above comment is your only edit to Wikipedia – you joined Wikipedia just to comment on this AfD?
Richard3120 (
talk) 20:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete All the sources are the same biographical paragraph, he does't pass
WP:GNG he maybe notable someday but he's not notable now. Whispering(
t) 15:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Doesn't seem to be notable. The sources are unreliable and they do not help with establishing the subject's notability. He does not pass
WP:GNG, at least for now. Keivan.fTalk 06:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Resources seem to be sufficient. It's okay to stay. What is mentioned in the news is that the person (child) is slowly becoming a nationally recognized child. Kimnereli.net is a site where only well-known people are present and their personal information is provided. Sites like: famousbirthdays.com The information available by e-mail is an option for lesser-known people, and in such cases there is the “special request” sign in parentheses.
Prianhana(T) 7:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC) —
Prianhana (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep editors of kimnereli style sites find things like birth date, height, biography from the internet. If they can’t find. E-mail option is available to receive e-mail from people who know it or from the manager of that famous name In very rare cases famous people can also e-mail.
Huriyeot45(T) 9:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC) —
Huriyeot45 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment to closing administrator:
WP:MEATPUPPET alert – every one of the "keep" voters has joined Wikipedia in the last 24 hours, and all of them by coincidence have decided to use the same font for their signatures.
Richard3120 (
talk) 13:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - as not currently meeting
WP:NBIO, created by a sock and supported by a flock of sox.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 07:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep There seems to be some problems with the sources, but I think the person is worth notable.
User:Kimfromkorea (
talk) 10:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC) blocked sock
Dom from Paris (
talk) 16:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep Once the necessary resources are added and corrected, the person can be everytime notable. (
talk) 16:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)—(
talk) Striking yet another blocked sockpuppet !vote...this must be a record! --
Dom from Paris (
talk) 12:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Although I accept that 'ethical banking' is a real phenomenon, this list is inevitably problematic.
The nature of the title gives it an innate POV slant that is going to be very difficult to overcome (and are we saying that banks not included in this list are not ethical?).
The criteria for inclusion are unclear, all banks presumably consider themselves 'ethical'.
It's a pretty broad term that is impossible to objectively assess. Just look at
the section in the main article about judging what is ethical. If Mill, Kant and Aristotle can't agree then how will Wikipedia editors?
Finally, what one source might describe as 'ethical' will vary from what another might.
A redirection to
Ethical banking could be an option but I oppose that on the grounds that there is currently no such list in that page, and I would avoid ever creating one for precisely the reasons given here.
Hugsyrup 12:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Ethical is a subjective phrase, and even if the term ethical bank reffered to a bank with a specific type of business model, there is no objective way of determining whether a bank matches the criteria. --
PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 13:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Only banks identified as such by reliable sources should be included (e.g. The Guardian[9], The Ecologist[10], a Journal of Business Ethics article
[11]), but that's an issue for cleanup, not deletion. The delete lvoters are focusing on the general meaning of the word "ethical" rather than the specialized, financial one.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 19:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
In addition, how are we to know that those articles are referring to a 'specialized financial meaning'? None of the three links you provide refer to any objective specialized meaning, they simply describe a bank as ethical without further explanation, or describe it as a strategic positioning of that bank. Indeed, the Ecologist article notably places ethical bank in
scare quotes every time, which rather illustrates my point.
Hugsyrup 07:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:OR and
WP:NOTDIR. Ethical is a point-of-view that may differ depending on who defines something as ethical.
Ajf773 (
talk) 19:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete This is a super subjective term, all the more so considering how long banks can exist.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 15:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Agree with nom and others; this is highly subjective and therefore highly problematic. Even if we only listed those banks that were noted by independent sources to be "ethical", this is subject to change without additional coverage. Nope.
Pegnawl (
talk) 21:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Subject does not appear to
WP:NHOCKEY. The Polish league isn't considered for any criteria and though he plays for Poland internationally, he has never played in a World Championship or an Olympics (he played in an Olympics qualifier but that doesn't count as Olympics participation). He was a first team All-Star in the USHL but crucially the league is not listed among the leagues in criteria #3. The Canadian junior leagues (OHL, WHL, QMJHL) are counted but the American junior leagues (USHL, NAHL) aren't. Therefore he fails #3. He also doesn't have any preeminent college awards to pass #4.
Tay87 (
talk) 09:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Does not meet the sport-specific criteria and coverage is not significant enough to warrant GNG.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 19:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 article about non-notable company with no substantial, independent coverage. Does not meet
WP:NORG, and particularly
WP:ORGCRITE. A previous prod was removed by a significant contributor, which is why I'm bringing this to AFD.
Hugsyrup 09:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete G11 per PuzzledVegtable, unsourced and clearly promotional. ~~ OxonAlex- talk 18:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete per G11. Pretty much cut-and-dried self-promotion.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 19:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge to parent company
Holley Performance Products. This article, which has been here for almost 12 years, does not qualify for speedy deletion as obvious spam. As written now it reads more like a general description of the company, its history and its products, with no
price list or call to action as might be expected in blatant promotion. But this standalone article of a fairly known brand does have its problems.
StonyBrook (
talk) 01:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Does not meet the sport-specific criteria and coverage is not significant enough to warrant GNG.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 18:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 fails
WP:NHOCKEY. Only played 83 DEL games before his career was cut short due to injury. Has no preeminent honours and did not play for Germany at a senior World Championship.
Tay87 (
talk) 09:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Does not meet the sport-specific criteria and coverage is not significant enough to warrant GNG.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 18:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus to delete. I would encourage
User:Bobo192 to tone it down a bit with the accusations of lying.Making mistakes is human and AGF is expected from all editors, especially sysops.
Randykitty (
talk) 14:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment he does appear in the database:
here, but it reveals no further information, and remains a bare statistical profile.
Harriastalk 08:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
There you go, Dee. Now not only are we trying to censor information, but we are lying in the process of doing so. The sad state of Wikipedia.
Bobo. 10:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Come on
Bobo192, you're better than that. I'm confident that
Dee03 searched in good faith, but didn't think to split the name. I only found it by trawling through manually.
Harriastalk 10:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Please tell me you can at least understand my frustration. I've been working my tuchis off for 15 years only for people to come along and say my work is unacceptable. This is why I'm upset.
Bobo. 10:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Don't accuse me of lying. I input the exact name provided by you in the article and got zero results on the Saurashtra website. I was searching that site only hoping to find this person's full name as I had just found
another Saurashtra cricketer's first name there. Now even if this cricketer's name is found (in a different form) on some other statistical website, it does not change the fact that he does not meet GNG.
Dee03 10:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Although he meets
WP:CRIN, that is only a rule of thumb to suggest whether a player will meet
WP:N. It is clear that based on the sources we have, and those that can be found from a Google search, that there is only routine coverage of this player, forming a bare statistical listing. Lacking significant coverage, this subject does not meet the
WP:GNG.
Harriastalk 08:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
He does meet N. This is the whole point. N states "or".
Bobo. 10:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes, it does. However, while some SSGs such as
WP:PROF state that they are independent and "explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline",
WP:NSPORT and by extension
WP:CRIN are not an alternative, as confirmed by community consensus in
this discussion.
Harriastalk 10:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Then you are lying too. Well done. Lying has got this whole project and this whole debate where it is. What a sad state of affairs.
Bobo. 10:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
"CRIN is just a rule of thumb which suggests whether a player will meet N". CRIN is just as much a "guideline" as N. As long as N states "or", the two guidelines are of equal footing.
Bobo. 10:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Not in the slightest no, your understanding is flawed.
Harriastalk 10:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I know that. I was just pointing out the irony that both were of equal footing and yet one is given more credence than the other even though N clearly states or.
Bobo. 10:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - Every Ranji Trophy cricketer I've created is on an old version of my user page. Just delete them all. This is beyond a joke now. The bored deletionists who wish to censor information because they feel it is unnecessary have won. It was only a matter of time.
Bobo. 09:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - I have a universe to attend to. I may be back. I may not...
Bobo. 10:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete- another virtually empty article about an obscure cricketer, full name unknown, based on pure stats databases containing not a single word of prose. Consensus is that this bare-bones sourcing is insufficient for a stand-alone article. A merge might be possible if there is a good target article. Calling people liars merely for disagreeing isn't acceptable behaviour.
ReykYO! 12:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
A claim was made. It was immediately proven to be false. How much more information do you want in the article? Any further information would be superfluous and unnecessary.
Bobo. 14:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Lacks significant coverage and so it fails the GNG which overrides sport-specific criteria. It consists of brief notes transcribed from a statistical source and there appears to be no potential for any worthwhile expansion to a readable narrative.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 13:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete a non-notable criketeer who does not meet the general notability guidelines.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 00:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
List of Saurashtra cricketers - this seems better than deleting and the incomplete list can be worked on at some point I'm sure. The lack of biographical information and single known match suggest very strongly that suitable sources for a standalone article are unlikely to be provided in the foreseeable future. If they are then we can create the article easily enough.
Blue Square Thing (
talk) 12:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete I think consensus is clear that the various persons with (full name and details unknown) and one first-class appearance are not inherently notable, regardless of what CRIN may say.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 20:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Does have some coverage in independent sources but it all seems a short-lived fame, almost BLP1E. —
kashmīrīTALK 19:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete per nom. Looks like promotion of her here. How the person got photo of her? --Harshilwant to talk? 14:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Firm consensus that notability is shown, and that articles created by blocked users but with substantive edits from others users aren't subject to deletion
(non-admin closure)Nosebagbear (
talk) 10:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Aside from any issues with the initial creator of the article, it's a widely distributed mainland Chinese television series and should be considered notable.
matt91486 (
talk) 05:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - blocked user. Keeping only encourages sockpuppetry.
Onel5969TT me 02:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - topic is certainly notable, and the blocked user is not the only major contributor. -
Zanhe (
talk) 03:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Failing GNG and NCORP. Sources seem largely aligned to PR/churnalism or are mentions in passing (short product intros). Available search results yield mostly routine corporate announcement or further aligned reporting. May be too soon for an independent article. pseudonymJake Brockmantalk 07:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Agree that, at best, this is
WP:TOOSOON. I also tried to find reliable sources on these fruit snacks, but also encountered food industry blogs, press releases and churnalism, not to mention a lot of otherwise reliable articles on the non-related
pork rind snacks. Alas, there is yet nothing more.
Geoff | Who, me? 20:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
magazine that fails
WP:NMEDIA. Supplied references are to a study of all media in Bhutan that mentions it but is not significant coverage of it, a news report on its first issue and a directory entry. Google finds no
WP:significant coverage.
noq (
talk) 07:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:GNG, and by extension
WP:N, and the coverage is routine statistical listings. The subject made a single first-class appearance and is long since retired. Technically, the subject meets
WP:CRIN, but this forms a part of
WP:NSPORT, which clearly states that "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". Per
this discussion, community consensus is that "subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply." In this case, coverage is so meagre that we do not even have the players full name.
Harriastalk 07:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete all No coverage found other than statistical profiles on Cricinfo and CricketArchive. None of these cricketers meet GNG.
Dee03 08:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - Every Ranji Trophy cricketer I've created is on an old version of my user page. Just delete them all. This is beyond a joke now. The bored deletionists who wish to censor information because they feel it is unnecessary have won. It was only a matter of time.
Bobo. 09:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - it does not fail N. N clearly states or. This is the fundamental problem we are dealing with. A complete contradiction.
Bobo. 10:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. I agree completely with the nominator's reasons and don't really think I'd be doing anyone any good by trying to add to them. --
Mkativerata (
talk) 10:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete- more empty microstubs based solely on score cards and statistical entries, without a word of prose between them. Consensus is that this bare-bones sourcing is not enough to support a stand-alone article. As the nominator points out, this SNG does not trump the general guideline. A merge or redirect to some suitable list article might be possible if a candidate target can be identified.
ReykYO! 12:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
What extra prose would you expect? Surely any other material would be superfluous.
Bobo. 14:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
These are purportedly biographical articles, with a person as their subjects. Biographical material, explaining this person's life and works, is the expected content of a biography.
Uncle G (
talk) 17:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete all six articles. There is a lack of significant coverage and so they each fail the GNG which overrides sport-specific criteria. The articles consist of brief notes transcribed from statistical sources and there doesn't appear to be any potential for worthwhile expansion to readable narratives.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 13:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Same question. What extra prose would you expect that wouldn't be utterly superfluous?
Bobo. 14:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Bobo192: I believe it's not so much extra prose as extra sourcing that is needed to prove that there is significant coverage of the subject in the wider media. As I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the key ruling or guideline within the GNG is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Equally, and again correct me if I'm wrong, sport-specific criteria such as NFOOTY and the cricket one only seek to establish potential notability within the scope of the sport itself and that can then be used as a qualifier for GNG consideration (obviously some sporting subjects could achieve GNG without meeting any sport-specific criteria). It is the GNG that counts because you cannot write an article (and by that I mean article, not brief notes) unless there are adequate sources available. You cannot transcribe statistical data into brief notes and call that an article. I would not be against the statistical data being used in a relevant list, subject to sourcing.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 15:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
We have demonstrated over and over that those who compile Cricket Archive and Cricinfo are independent of the subject - and of each other. As for "the media", and i'm speaking entirely tongue-in-cheek here, I trust the media now a lot less than I used to! ;)
Bobo. 15:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Bobo192: Looking at
S. K. Desai, as I have a friend of that name, there are no citations in the article which has four short sentences only. The inference is that the information came from the Cricket Archive site, which you mention above, because it is given as an external link. That site is paywalled and so I can't access it but I'm reliably informed that it is the cricketing equivalent of Soccerbase except that it is not professionally run. Received wisdom is that Cricket Archive is self-published by a private club or society of some sort, so it's like an "in-house" publication, same as an online parish magazine or whatever. Cricinfo, of course, is run by ESPN and it does articles as well as statistics so no problem with that, but this Cricket Archive site looks like a dubious source to me.
(Please forgive me, because this reply is to this part of the post I've re-indented slightly). I missed this comment, sorry. Back in 2009 when this article was first created, I created about eight zillion articles like this and, as was the custom at the time, I put external links on the bottom rather than inline citations. We'd be quoting basically the same information and the same sources. And even if the article did have "narrative", we'd be quoting from exactly the same sources as we would without. My simple answer when a situation like that is easily fixable, by virtue of WP:SOFIXIT. The fact that these articles are being deleted in spite of these external links upsets me greatly - as there are hundreds which are missing such links, as I've outlined elsewhere.
Bobo. 22:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I know much, much more about football than about cricket but, even though Soccerbase is a professional setup, I would not support an article based entirely on stats lifted from Soccerbase. An article, almost by definition, must contain narrative and a good article must have a flow of narrative. You do not get narrative from a statistical site that gives an incomplete name, as recorded on a scorecard, and tells you that he played in one match and didn't score a run, which is the sum total of Mr Desai's career.
You mentioned fifteen years earlier and that is about the time I've been a reader of Wikipedia. Given a busy career, I only made edits when I saw something that needed correcting or, occasionally, expanding. I didn't become a member till after I retired end of last year. While I was primarily a reader, I used to hate it whenever I followed up a Google search and found something like
S. K. Desai. Sorry, but it isn't an article. It is a transcription of raw statistical data that just doesn't pass muster and is indefensible. The GNG is a good principle and it's right. These NFOOTY variations are okay up to a point but that point is potential qualification for GNG; and potential is never certain, only potential. Apologies for the length of this reply.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 18:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I can say very little other than the fact that it saddens me not only that GNG exists but that notability guidelines are contradicted on WP namespace pages themselves.
My argument throughout all of this is the same argument as that of a certain founder of this site. Wikipedia is the sum of all human knowledge. Not "all human knowledge except for that which other people find offensive". And that is what I've been attempting to do all along. Censoring information because we don't like it is morally wrong.
Bobo. 22:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
You are not addressing the documenting the person in-depth part.
Uncle G (
talk) 17:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Hard to direct to a category. If there is an article
List of Gujarat cricketers, then if people so desire, they can redirect it there, surely... *rifles around Wikipedia* There is, and nobody keeps it updated. On what basis these list articles were created in the first place, and how the information was selectively chosen, I've no idea...
Bobo. 15:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete all none come even close to meeting the general notability guidelines.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 00:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: existence with verifiability is one thing, notability is an other. I ran searches for two of the subjects; all I could get is stats, or the websites that cover everything related to cricket. It doesnt establish notability. I will cast my vote soon (in a few hours) for these bundled AfDs (after running searches for the lot of dozen players or so), and most probably it is going to be a delete. —usernamekiran
(talk) 06:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
List of Gujarat cricketers. I know this is an incomplete list, but it allows the key information to be retained and can be developed when someone has time. Without more specific biographical information I doubt we're going to be able to find properly in depth sources on these chaps anytime soon - if at all. Each played just one match and we really don't know anything beyond that and a name and initials. If sources became available I would have no issue with recreating the article - by redirecting to a list that becomes easier to do.
Blue Square Thing (
talk) 13:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
delete all: per
my comment above. Existence with verification is one thing, and notability is other. These players fail
WP:GNG big time. Even if the subject passes some subject specific guideline, it doesnt mean we must have an article on it. All the coverage I could find came from the websites that try to cover everything n anything related to cricket, this doesnt establish notability. And due to the lack of persistent
significant coverage, we can delete the articles. —usernamekiran
(talk) 06:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete I think consensus is clear that the various persons with (full name and details unknown) and one first-class appearance are not inherently notable, regardless of what CRIN may say.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 20:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:GNG, and by extension
WP:N, and the coverage is routine statistical listings. The subject made a single first-class appearance and is long since retired. Technically, the subject meets
WP:CRIN, but this forms a part of
WP:NSPORT, which clearly states that "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". Per
this discussion, community consensus is that "subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply." In this case, coverage is so meagre that we do not even have the players full name.
Harriastalk 07:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete No coverage found other than statistical profiles on Cricinfo and CricketArchive. This cricketer does not meet GNG.
Dee03 08:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - Every Ranji Trophy cricketer I've created is on an old version of my user page. Just delete them all. This is beyond a joke now. The bored deletionists who wish to censor information because they feel it is unnecessary have won. It was only a matter of time.
Bobo. 09:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - it does not fail N. N clearly states or. This is the fundamental problem we are dealing with. A complete contradiction. As for "in clear cases where GNG does not apply", that is clearly stated on N.
Bobo. 10:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
As I've replied to you elsewhere, your understanding is flawed. Some SSGs such as
WP:PROF explicitly state that they override the
WP:GNG, which is what that clause covers.
WP:NSPORT, and
WP:CRIN as part of that, do not do that.
Harriastalk 10:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Double standards even within SSGs. Wow. If that isn't flawed, I would like to know what is.
Bobo. 10:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete- This article is based on raw statistical entries that do not contain a word of prose between them. Given that we only have a first initial and a (common) surname for this player there might even be issues distinguishing him from similarly named people active around the same time. Harrias is correct that
WP:CRIN defers to the general notability guideline, and not the other way around. A merge to a suitable list article might be possible if there is a good target.
ReykYO! 12:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The only other N-anything Kumar played 17 seasons later....
Bobo. 14:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Lacks "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and so it fails the GNG. This is exactly like
S. K. Desai below with brief statistical transcriptions, no citations and apparently taken from the paywalled Cricket Archive site (mentioned as an external link) which, I am reliably informed, is an in-house self-published source that contains statistics only and no narrative.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 19:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete The cricket inclusion criteria are clearly flawed. So for that matter are the football ones, where 2 and three leagues per country, even in a country like the US where football is not followed much at all, are included. Our inclusion criteria for actors are more demanding than for many sportspeople. It is time for us to stop giving a pass for one game, we do not give passes for one film, even when the role is significant, which is a word that does not apply to the relationship between the one appearance in a game and the role of some of these sportspeople in it.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
WP:NACTOR is an excellent comparison. Half the
actors who appeared in the film which won this year's Best Picture Oscar don't seem to have their own Wikipedia articles. And like you said, inclusion criteria need to be tighter and more consistent across all fields.
Dee03 11:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete or, if anyone wants to create one, redirect to a suitable list. A lack any other biographical information tends to suggest that we're unlikely, at this stage, to be able to find any sources which deal with the subject in detail - I certainly can't find anything. That we know of only two matches he played in - one club match I think as well as his FC match - makes this more likely in my view. If such sources become available I would, as always, have no issue with the article being recreated.
Blue Square Thing (
talk) 11:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete I think consensus is clear that the various persons with (full name and details unknown) and one first-class appearance are not inherently notable, regardless of what CRIN may say.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 20:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominating this for deletion mostly due to not finding it being notable enough to have its own article. Cannot find any reliable sources that covered this series either.
GamerPro64 05:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. The references include personal blogs, the subject itself, and other self published sources. --
PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 13:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 08:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:ARTIST. Insignificant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Non major awards or Top 100 lists.
Comatmebro (
talk) 03:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - I was initially inclined to !vote delete, but two things are giving me pause.
WP:NMUSIC #11 counts placed in
rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network as a signifier of notability, and this artist had a video at least air on MTV - was it possible it was added to a rotation? Possibly more strongly, #12 counts Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.
This article notes Wordplay’s rise began with a feature on MTV’s RapFix Live and that turned into making Music for the Underdog. Were either of these a "substantial broadcast segment"? I'm having trouble telling right now. I will try to look into further, but if you are able to conclusively answer either of these questions before me, it might settle things.
MarginalCost (
talk) 13:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment Not inclined to believe it aired on MTV; it may have been in the rotation on
MTV Jams perhaps (a lesser-viewed sister channel), but by 2009 if you aired a video on MTV, it was likely only in a late night slot, not as a prime attraction. And according to
this, it seems like the feature segment was only hosted on the MTV website. Nate•(
chatter) 16:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm not seeing where in that link it says anything about on air vs. website-only.
MarginalCost (
talk) 16:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Generally over the last ten years, short feature segments about music have been web-only for MTV overall (it's been a longtime problem where low-wattage artists that have come to AfD have claimed they've been on MTV, only to be a web-only clip very buried on their website).
This link about it indeed airing on MTV Jams beginning only in 2013 clearly notes RapFix is 'the popular webseries'. Nate•(
chatter) 17:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - per above discussion. It seems the series was not aired on "a national TV network" when WordPlay would have been featured, if the piece was even "substantial" in the first place. No evidence of placement into rotation. No evidence of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
MarginalCost (
talk) 19:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Nothing to indicate notability, in an article which makes unsubstantiated attempts to suggest significance, such as saying that a song "was huge success" when none of the cited sources says anything remotely suggesting that it did, and nor does any other source I have seen. The fact that one of the sources is a report of the fact that he "starred" in a video promoting one of his own recordings is an indication of how far this article is scraping the barrel in trying to find citations to give an impression of notability.
Breaking sticks (
talk) 20:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per above discussion.
Deb (
talk) 11:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 08:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Realistically, everything out there about her with the exception of appearing in Drake's music video (not really an accomplishment) is gossip. Someone even lacked the self-preservation to go to the notorious Lipstick Alley!
Trillfendi (
talk) 23:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Borderline Keep People of equally dubious notoriety have Wikipedia articles, after all — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
JasonKY (
talk •
contribs) 01:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete non-notable entertainer. Yes, lots of other articles are on people equally as unnotable, which is why we have pretty much constantly 200 or more articles on people up at AfD, plus more going through procedural and speedy deletion, and with some of these articles having lasted a decade or more the best indication is we have lots more articles on non-notable people that do not get deleted, probably in part because creating a deletion nomination takes at least 5 steps of editing, and in addition you are epected to do an indepth before search prior to moninating, and doing this process will often get you berated and accused of all sorts of ill will for even suggesting we should delete an article on someone who just had a daughter die, or is is a member of a "protected class", or who might have been covered by a newspaper that we no longer have because all the copies burned in a fire, or whose following numbers on Instagram clearly show they are notable, and on and on.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 06:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Scott Burley (
talk) 02:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Sources are mostly internet. Agree w JPL that this is a non-notable entertainer.
Agricola44 (
talk) 17:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Notability is not temporary. A possible merge can be discussed on the article's talk page (or done in a
WP:BOLD edit).
Randykitty (
talk) 14:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The topic isn't significantly more notable than daily developments happening at its time, and has now lost significance. Even the 1st linked webpage in External links section had changed title.
Dannyniu (
talk) 08:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak keepThis 2008 article at
Tom's Hardware suggests that it was a milestone at the history of supercomputers. Quote: "Desktop supercomputers became a reality today as Nvidia announced the release of its new GPU-based Tesla personal supercomputer". --
Gprscrippers (
talk) 17:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)reply
That's just one source, are you very certain that's not over-hyped and unreliable? I think the article is just a routine report of a niche product. The article in its current form is just a description of a proprietary technological setup, having no mention of its sigificance. And after all these years, Nvidia is no longer the sole provider of GPGPU ICs.
Dannyniu (
talk) 03:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Forgot to mention, the French Wikipedia removed the corresponding article back in 2012.
Dannyniu (
talk) 03:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Scott Burley (
talk) 02:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Nvidia. There are just enough sources
[12],
[13],
[14] to support this being significant when it was released, and I'd point out that
notability is not temporary so it cannot have 'lost its significance'. However, I'd agree with the nominator that there is not enough substantial coverage of this specific device to merit a standalone article.
Hugsyrup 11:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Compared to most Filipino radio articles for smaller stations, this meets BROADCAST; plenty of sources to its existence. Nate•(
chatter) 02:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - One of a flood of entirely non-notable radio stations that have had articles created recently. Does not come close to meeting
WP:NCORP, which is the required standard.
Hugsyrup 16:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Scott Burley (
talk) 02:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete: No significant coverage.
SL93 (
talk) 17:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
It isn't about if it exists. It's about notability.
SL93 (
talk) 00:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 08:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge into
Holy card, this is maybe as notable as the "Collecting" heading on this article. Obviously a great deal of condensing would be needed.--
Epiphyllumlover (
talk) 05:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete The single radio interview isn't sufficient for notability; the rest of the references are not independent or reliable sources, and some are promotional. I couldn't find any sources to add to the article to support it.
Schazjmd(talk) 05:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Scott Burley (
talk) 02:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Participation in this debate was rather poor and there also seem to be some misunderstandings (i.e., a "delete" !vote per someone who seemed to be arguing for "keep"). Therefore no prejudice to re-nomination in a month or so if better sourcing is not forthcoming.
Randykitty (
talk) 14:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Both sources mentioned in the article fail
WP:ORGDEPTH - they discuss a lack of suregeons at the hospital, but not much in depth information about the hospital (year of founding, etc.). Same goes for the sources I could find when searching on Google.
MrClog (
talk) 21:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)reply
comment: The hospital serves throat deceases, and also serves patents. These are really remarkable feats. I mean, how many other hospitals serve patents, or try to cure E/N/T problems of deceased people? —usernamekiran
(talk) 21:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)reply
The article is pretty rudimentary. I'm not even sure if the name of the hospital is accurate. But it would be very surprising if a public hospital of this size was not notable, and there seems to be plenty of coverage of it in reputable sources.
Rathfelder (
talk) 22:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)reply
I haven't been able to find any
WP:ORGDEPTH stuff. If the hospital really has a different name, that may explain it. --
MrClog (
talk) 23:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)reply
It is almost impossible to find detailed coverage of any hospital. They are too complicated. It have to be pieced together over time.
Rathfelder (
talk) 14:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)reply
If there aren't sources meeting ORGDEPTH yet, then the article should be deleted and recreated once these sources exist. --
MrClog (
talk) 22:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further consensus needed at this stage to decide an outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StevenCrossinHelp resolve disputes! 01:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Scott Burley (
talk) 02:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Usernamekiran, I believe Rathfelder is arguing against deletion, but I am not sure. --
MrClog (
talk) 12:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —
JJMC89 (
T·C) 02:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
small-town mayor. Not notable and does not meet
WP:POLITICIAN. As with any local politician, he received coverage from the local press, but that's not enough to meet the guideline.
Rusf10 (
talk) 02:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Coverage is local, and
Metuchen, New Jersey's population was only 13K (in 2010), so being its mayor confers no particular notability.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 19:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete contrary to what some editors have thought there is not a special exception that makes New Jersey mayors default notable.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 01:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Concede that the page should be parred back, but Busch is mentioned regularly in statewide and regional news outlets and qualifies as receiving "significant press coverage."
Homerseditor (
talk) 20:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete hasn't garnered anything more than routine coverage and doesn't pass
WP:NPOL. Best,
GPL93 (
talk) 00:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete coverage is local, fails
WP:NPOL, we do not keep mayors of small towns unless they pass
WP:GNG for other reasons (otherwise notable, or achieved notability over an area significantly larger than their town.)
SportingFlyerT·C 07:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Homerseditor, you've already voted above, so I've struck your second !vote, though your comments are still welcome - but please also see
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Some of these may also need to be deleted.
SportingFlyerT·C 17:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Lankey and Bollwage preside over populations over 100K (the unofficial cutoff), while Hameeduddin is a pioneer of sorts. I've nominated Cahill for deletion (despite his 28 years in office, and counting) due to a lack of significant media coverage.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 19:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete not notable fails wp:npol from a city of less than 15,000.
Lightburst (
talk) 23:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The criteria at
WP:NHOSPITALS are met easily enough, but I can't see where that was achieved for this example - no in-depth coverage is provided, and I couldn't find anything beyond the passing mentions already referenced. Possibly editors who get lost less easily in the inventive grammar and complex nomenclature of the relevant search results may be more lucky. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs) 17:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs) 17:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Scott Burley (
talk) 02:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete – in reviewing
WP:NHOSPITALS, the hospital doesn't seem to satisfy the in-depth coverage criterion, and from what I have been able to find the majority of coverage seems to be limited to passing mentions of a government TB hospital without much comment on the hospital's organizational structure or history aside from brief news stories about recent operational developments. This is reflected in both my own searches and the references in the article, which seem to establish the notability of
King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam, moreso than Government TB and Chest Hospital whose name doesn't appear in any significant coverage. More often than not, the hospital appears in press coverage through association with other Visakhapatnam hospitals rather than by virtue of its own notability.
TheAustinMan(
Talk ⬩
Edits) 22:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Scott Burley (
talk) 02:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. I think the coverage is significant enough for the GNG.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 12:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Has made a "unique, prolific or innovative contributions" to skateboarding (or close enough to as per San Fran Examiner article pointed out above), plenty of coverage before and after his death (again as pointed out above). This is a keep.
Josalm64rc (
talk) 01:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 need to think about this one more, but am inclined to keep. There has been significant coverage by multiple reliable independent secondary sources (over a number of years even). But it's all because of lawsuits, both by them and against them, and FDA regulation. Example of coverage:
BuzzFeed News. There has been a smattering of other coverage of its service like from this
NYT blog in addition to lots of Chicago Tribune coverage the best of which is
[15],
[16], and
[17]. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Barkeep49 (
talk •
contribs) 00:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Question: doesn't coverage because of lawsuits count as coverage? If the lawsuit is what brings the company the attention of the press and results in news articles being published about the company in relation to the lawsuit, isn't that coverage? If the sources discussing lawsuits are not to be counted here, then it looks like the original deletion nomination should maybe have been made per
WP:ILLCON and not
WP:CORPDEPTH overall, but then I don't think the lawsuit-related sources are suggesting that the company has been acting illegally (which is what that standard is poised to address), only that it has been legally banned from offering its services in certain US states. Visibly isn't in the news because of illegal activity (to my knowledge). Let me also be clear: I have no
WP:COI here in creating this article— I do, however, have poor eyesight (!) and was doing research on vision tests when I came across Visibly and thought, "Hey, this may warrant an article," and then found sources, and then wrote it up using those sources— nothing more nor less. Just to be clear!
A loose necktie (
talk) 18:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Scott Burley (
talk) 02:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:BIO and
WP:GNG. All references included in the article were authored or co-authored by Natti Ronel. A search for significant coverage from independent
reliable sources did not yield anything that would satisfy notability guidelines to merit the inclusion of the subject on Wikipedia.
ƏXPLICIT 01:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
ran a news archive search and aded 2
WP:RS on his early career. Also ran his name throughgScholar search, he is quite widely cited, but arguably not widely cited enough to keep. I am inclining towards a
WP:NOTPROMO DELETE, but waiting to see what folks who work in counseling, psychology have to say.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 14:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC) Note: On august 8, 2019 E.M.Gregory has been indefinitely blocked as a sockreply
Delete Not notable. The nominator is correct. Primary sourced article -
WP:PROMOTION.
Lightburst (
talk) 03:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —
JJMC89 (
T·C) 02:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:SNOW and
WP:MILL. He seems to be a very ordinary character actor.
Bearian (
talk) 16:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete unfortunately as he does have one leading role in a notable production but that is not enough on its own so it is
WP:TOOSOON at this stage, though he may well be notable in the future with more roles, thanks
Atlantic306 (
talk) 20:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —
JJMC89 (
T·C) 02:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Subject fails
WP:NHOCKEY. Only 167 games played in the AHL and 200 is needed to pass #2. No preeminent honours to pass #3 either.
Tay87 (
talk) 00:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Does not meet the sport-specific criteria and coverage is not significant enough to warrant GNG. Also, bound to be no more than a sentence or two transcribed from a statistical source. There has to be enough to produce a readable narrative.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 13:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 coverage other than press releases, promotional features and passing mentions; fails
WP:NBIO. Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs) 22:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep (and clean up), CEO of major film company. Lots of nontrivial mentions, e.g.
[1],
[2]. —Kusma (
t·
c) 09:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
KeepSources like this show notability as does being the head of a major film studio and the honorary degree he got.
Josalm64rc (
talk) 22:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Why is it not possible to improve the single issues instead of deleting the whole article? According to Variety [… Moszkowicz, Constantin’s head of film and TV, has become the face of Germany’s leading independent producer-distrib in recent years, overseeing such diverse concerns as film and TV production, domestic and international distribution, licensing, acquisitions and marketing. He has worked on more than 100 features, serving as producer, exec producer or production company head on such commercial and critical hits as Soenke Wortmann’s “Maybe… Maybe Not,” Michael Herbig’s “Manitou’s Shoe,” Caroline Link’s Oscar-winning “Nowhere in Africa,” Tom Tykwer’s “Perfume: The Story of a Murderer,” Oliver Hirschbiegel’s “Downfall” and Uli Edel’s “The Baader Meinhof Complex.” …]
[3] Just in Variety there are 248 articles about Martin Moszkowicz:
[4]Parola per parola (
talk) 04:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Well, about 240 of these are just that - no more than passing mentions, and effectively worthless. However, that still leaves at least half a dozen more substantial articles, which should suffice. The Variety archive clearly was a good place to look. - I'll leave this open for another day or so and then withdraw if no dissent emerges. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs) 16:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)reply
(NB,
Parola per parola - it's useful to actually provide this type of source when starting an article. Why you would put this into mainspace as reliant on the crap sourcing originally used is mysterious. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs) 16:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC))reply
Thank you for your notes. Next time I'll try to be more effective and use the sources like this one [
[5]] --
Parola per parola (
talk) 17:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Vanamonde (
Talk) 05:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I cannot find any basis for notability on this. It's been flagged as needing references for almost five years, and only has two. One reference is a college newspaper article
[6] on a different topic (interviewing one of the co-creators, Mike Henry) with only one sentence on this show ("Henry and his brother Patrick also created ‘Kicked in the Nuts,” a popular and well-received entry in 2003 for Channel101.com, a short film-oriented Web site.") The other is a dead-link with no archive on the wayback machine. I independently found one other passing mention: a single sentence in the obituary
[7] for the other co-creator Patrick Henry ("The pair produced a list of short films and the web series “Kicked in the Nuts,” a spoof on hidden camera shows."). Apart from that, nada.
The fact that it was alluded to in a Family Guy episode would initially suggest that it was notable enough, if it was referred to in a mainstream TV show... until you realize that the episode that referred to it was itself written by the Kicked in the Nuts co-creators.
It's been marked as needing sources for almost five years. I don't think it's going to get any; I certainly can't find any. And given that it's an Internet-based show, any sources would be likely to show up on the Internet.
I was going to take a stab at improving it, but apart from an infobox and an external link to IMDB
[8], I don't see much of a way to do so, There simply isn't much of anything written about it; which is another way of saying it does not meet notability standards.
TJRC (
talk) 22:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete I believe this is better considered as a short-film and not a "web series". Regardless, there is inadequate sourcing (though it is on Youtube).
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 20:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete There isn’t much about this series I could find, imo lacks
WP:GNG.
1989 (
talk) 20:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.
RL0919 (
talk) 00:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The only "coverage" I can find are funding announcements and other
WP:MILL stuff. Fails
WP:GNG possibly just too soon.
Praxidicae (
talk) 20:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete as highly likely
paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for this.
MER-C 16:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - I do not believe this company meets
WP:CORPDEPTH as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The article has been created by an editor with a likely conflict of interest and is just a free advertisement for the startup company.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 12:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete unless it is completely rewritten, for the reasons espoused above
Sam-2727 (
talk) 16:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
Duttapukur. No prejudice to recreation if coverage can be found.
Randykitty (
talk) 09:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 20:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Duttapukur where it is mentioned. High schools are typically kept at AfD but in this case, I really can't find coverage that would satisfy
WP:GNG.
Pichpich (
talk) 18:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 evidence nor claim of notability.
WP:BEFORE shows passing mentions, nothing with biographical detail. Previous AFD was actually the same guy when he was a student.
David Gerard (
talk) 12:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete when the previous keep votes argued the person was notable because of how fast he got his Ph.D. to me that is a screaming sign that he is not notable. People are not notable because they get educated fast, and often people who plow through subjects fast do not have a deep understanding of them. OK, maybe I am biased because it was 9 years between when I started my bachelors degree and completed it, but still nothing shows this person is notable.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 06:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep hot young intellectual needs a better article. Note incoming link from
Quadratic voting, a concept Weyl co-created. Recent book was widely reviewed - I added a few of the reviews.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 19:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)strike vote of sockpuppet.
Onel5969TT me 03:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The cites you added seem to be material for the book's notability - do they cover Weyl himself in any biographical detail? -
David Gerard (
talk) 19:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
not in depth, but multiple
WP:RS do cover his ideas in depth. Page just needs an editor, or just keep it and wait for it to be crowd-sourced.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 20:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC) strike apparent sockpuppet -
David Gerard (
talk) 13:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Source analysis
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 20:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep The book he co-authored is notable (that's a start),
quadratic voting, which he co-invented is also notable. There's not a lot of references that focus a bit more on Weyl specifically but there are some (including
some in French). I think he passes
WP:GNG barely but certainly
WP:PROF.
Pichpich (
talk) 18:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete spam for non-notable company —
RHaworth (
talk·contribs) 11:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱 20:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
There's no claim of notability (or references) in the article and a Google search turned up almost nothing about him, let alone anything reliable and verifiable that would support notability.
Alansohn (
talk) 19:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. I don't know why this page was never CSD'ed to begin with, page never had references, but not sure if we can do that now.
Sir Joseph(talk) 20:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Could have been speedied as A7 or BLPPROD'ed since there are no references. Now that it's at AfD, we need to check if there's any significant coverage of this man: I did not find any and I think he plainly fails
WP:GNG.
Pichpich (
talk) 18:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 independently notable. Not legitimate, so no claim to the throne. Scandal was about her mother, so no need for a separate article about this 9-year-old girl. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 19:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Her notability is not demonstrated by any claim to the throne but by the fact that she has been the subject of sustained interest by historians and biographers, as attested by the references provided in the article. There’s ‘no need’ for much of Wikipedia, but we judge notability on sourcing, meaning this clearly passes.
Mccapra (
talk) 22:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
None of the sources cited are about her but about her mother. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 22:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes the sources are all books about her mother, but they all make reference to the daughter. The girl’s entire life is known through these sources. AFAIK every book about her mother discusses the daughter means so she has received sustained coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. The girl was not historically significant, but per our guidelines she was notable.
Mccapra (
talk) 05:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete her mother was notable, nothing suggests that this 9 year old girl ever rose to the level of notability.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 00:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
… apart from all of the history books with her life in them. Not even cited in the article is
Margaret Crosland's book, which would also support all of this, across 8 pages. Then there are the books on the privately collected works of Boucher, the books that are in French … Mccapra is right. We keep stuff because it is properly documented objectively and in depth by multiple people.
Subjective ideas of fame and importance are no more the rule for historical figures than they are for atolls in the Solomon Islands and species of beetle. People suggested
fame and importance, years ago. It was wrong.
Uncle G (
talk) 07:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge briefly to her mother, who was an extremely notable royal mistress. She is certainly not independently notable. Even if she had been legitimate, a princess being educated in a convent would hardly be notable by the age of 9.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment I think you are mixing up significance with notability. There is no argument at all that she was significant. However if you look at
WP:BASIC you’ll see she definitely passes our notability threshold.
Mccapra (
talk) 03:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Regarded by a king as his stepdaughter. Definitely notable. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 10:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep sufficient coverage, though this could possibly be handled in a section of her mother's article.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 20:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep I think merging to her mother would lead to a rather lengthy digression so keeping a (well-referenced) separate article is most appropriate.
Pichpich (
talk) 19:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —
JJMC89 (
T·C) 06:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 12:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete no evidence of notability.
GiantSnowman 12:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per GS –
Levivich 17:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
Encantadia. Lacks evidence of separate notability.
RL0919 (
talk) 00:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Non-notable fantasy character, not to mention that there is no mention of the character's real-world background and cultural impact in order to establish its notability. I don't mind its inclusion as a separate article in Wikipedia, but unless OP provides anything to back up its notability, the deletion request still remains.
Blake Gripling (
talk) 05:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep I don't think that it's necessary for an article to have a cultural impact if it's literally a piece of the culture itself. This article is creating a more in depth understanding of the story line it comes from, and adding that information to Wikipedia --regardless of it's cultural significance-- seems appropriate to me. The character was created for the story line, which is in itself, culturally significant. Keep, because it is a good piece of information, even if it is rather insignificant, to have in the Wikipedia database.
BluePankow✉ 14:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The following parts, "it is a good piece of information" and "The character was created for the story line, which is in itself, culturally significant", are not good "keep" arguments. I would recommend instead finding coverage of the character in third-party, reliable sources to prove notability to make a stronger argument to keep the article.
Aoba47 (
talk) 02:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk) 17:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect to Encantadia as there does not appear to be enough coverage from third-party, reliable sources to support notability. It could be a viable search term though so I think a redirect would be better and more helpful than outright deletion.
Aoba47 (
talk) 03:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱 20:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Lacks "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and so it fails the GNG. The information suggests a player who is not in top-level competition and so fails the terms of WP:NBASKETBALL.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 12:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk) 17:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Just passing and routine mentions (since he plays in a pro league that is bound to happen), he fails
WP:NHOOPS all in all a delete.
Josalm64rc (
talk) 21:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Per nom. Fails GNG.
Barca (
talk) 23:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
WP:NSPORT requires athletes to have competed "at the highest level" which the Universiade clearly is not.
Papaursa (
talk) 15:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 child writer, with no
properly sourced evidence of passing
WP:AUTHOR. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability test requires evidence of significance, such as winning major literary awards and/or having received enough
reliable source critical attention to clear
WP:GNG. But this is referenced entirely to unreliable
primary sources such as Amazon and GoodReads and a press release on the
self-published website of the school he attends, with not a shred of real independent third party media coverage shown at all. This is not how you reference a writer as notable enough for an encyclopedia article.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - No in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources, so he doesn't pass
WP:GNG, and he clearly doesn't meet
WP:NAUTHOR.
Onel5969TT me 17:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - It is said 'writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles', but it is not highlighted that the author is 13, something that should be 'notable'. Ilincev was on the
List of books written by children or teenagers, and all of those that are listed have their own wiki articles, even if they only wrote a single book (example:
Faiza Guene). So, Ilincev should be included. As to the so-called 'unreliability' of the sources, it should be shown that these were used to reference personal information about the author, and the school websites' article was written by one of their administrators, not by Ilincev himself, of course. As well as that, the author is the only Czech child author. Is that not notable?
AlphArcher (
talk) 17:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
You are erroneously conflating subjective criteria of importance with notability.
Notability is not fame nor importance. It is, indeed, what we came up with years ago when we found that
Project:fame and importance did not work. A biographical subject gets a biographical article if there is in-depth documentation of the subject's life and works from multiple sources with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, from which to construct a biography in accordance with our content policies. It's that simple, and a good argument for having a biography, that will actually hold water where subjective evaluations of importance will not, is to cite multiple good sources that document this person's life and/or works in depth.
Uncle G (
talk) 19:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Notability, for Wikipedia purposes, is not "has done something that I find interesting" — it is "has received
reliable source coverage in media for it". Even a person who was actually the Second Coming of Jesus Christ wouldn't get a biographical article about him on Wikipedia until after media have written about his claim.
Bearcat (
talk) 21:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete fails
WP:SIGCOV.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 17:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Note to ivoters and closing administrator: E.M.Gregory is a blocked sock.
Lightburst (
talk) 12:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep - Being a child author is rare, and AlphArcher makes a good point in saying the notability of Ilincev publishing a novel at that age is sufficient to warrant an article.
Threyed (
talk) 18:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
User:Threyed, Welcome to Wikipedia. I can see that this is your very first edit. It takes a while to understand how Wikipedia works, so allow me to suggest that you read
WP:NOTAVOTE and
WP:GNG, and understand that while your comment may be true, it is necessary to support opinions with
WP:RS.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 18:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
User:E.M.Gregory Thank you for informing me. I still think my opinion should count, but I was just reaffirming the obvious fact that AlphArcher pointed out while looking through the Articles for Deletion section, that of the comparison to other child authors.
Threyed (
talk) 18:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
No matter how "rare" something may be, a person becoming notable for it requires him to have received media coverage.
Bearcat (
talk) 21:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete being a teenager who gets works published is not read enough to give default notability. We need third party coverage which is lacking here.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 06:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱 20:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:BAND. Defunct grindcore metal band, whose entire output appears to be two limited-release split 7" singles with other bands, and three song contributions to three non-notable compilation/tribute albums. Entirely sourced to user-generated websites like Discogs and Rate Your Music, and the usual metal wikias, and no better reliable sources have been found – no demonstration of notability at all.
Richard3120 (
talk) 15:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk) 17:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Per nom.
Barca (
talk) 23:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.
RL0919 (
talk) 00:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Promotional - the current article is a
WP:COATRACK for Ryan D'Arcy's research.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 16:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Brain vital signs is a new neuroscience technology that is groundbreaking because it's newly developed by several neuro-researchers from Simon Fraser University including Dr. Ryan D'Arcy. The neuro-technology is used in several clinical studies by other non-related researchers. It's no different from when Elon Musk and his teams develop something new and innovative. Musk's Wiki entry includes all his companies/initiatives, each entities with its own wiki page. I cross referenced Wiki's deletion policy and don't see that this entry incurs any infractions? Info is correct and referenced and sourced. Can you advise how you're seeing differently and how I can revise to address your concerns? Keep in mind I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so not well versed in coding etc. so apologies for format issues.
YoEmFuji (
talk) 17:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
User:YoEmFuji 10:42, 1 August 2019 (PST)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk) 17:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep There are a few bits of language that are puffery but those can be removed. The article cites both academic and popular sources that appear to support
WP:GNG. I read
WP:COAT but don't see how it applies here: a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely — the nominal subject is the framework, and that's what the article discusses. editing to add: I'll leave my previous comment, but I'm glad some editors with experience on medical articles showed up to comment; I defer to their expertise.
Schazjmd(talk) 17:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete – Overemphasis on one research team, overemphasis on one research teams' primary studies, and promotional. I'm not seeing
secondary medical sources that we could summarize, otherwise the article could be saved. – Thjarkur(talk) 20:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per Thjarkur. On topics pertaining to medicine, we have to be particularly vigilant in avoiding churnalism and other kinds of uncritical coverage.
XOR'easter (
talk) 21:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per Thjarkur. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and is just an advertisement for the scientific framework.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 12:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage in multiple indepenent sources.----
Pontificalibus 11:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Vanamonde (
Talk) 05:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:MUSICBIO. Previous discusson determined that they had multiple albums on a notable label, but I don't see the notable label either.
Walter Görlitz (
talk) 04:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk) 16:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete I checked Napalm Records and they aren't on their roster. It appears the previous AfD had faulty information.
Simonm223 (
talk) 18:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Participants in the discussion do not believe there are sources that are
independent and
reliable to support notability.
RL0919 (
talk) 00:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)reply
No true in depth coverage, fails
WP:NACTOR, nothing much has changed since the last AFD in terms of available sources.
Praxidicae (
talk) 16:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. This was nominated for G4 speedy, and I (reluctantly) declined speedy deletion because this new version is substantially different from the original, deleted version. However, IMO the new version still does not meet
WP:GNG or
WP:BIO. If it is deleted again, I suggest the deleting admin consider salting the title, since it has been deleted and recreated multiple times. --
MelanieN (
talk) 16:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The content if I remember is slightly different, yeah, so I get the decline but coverage wise it's still more or less the same, the previous nom was better than mine, so everyone should just look at that ;)
Praxidicae (
talk) 16:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete, As per my comments on the previous AfD - fails
WP:ANYBIO, the references provided are from 'celebrity' websites (with uncertain independent editorial oversight - more like fan sites) which only relate to her appearance as a contestant on an Indian reality television show.
Dan arndt (
talk) 23:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. No RS and quick check just reveals more social media cruft.
Agricola44 (
talk) 16:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete as per comments above. This has been created too many times and poorly each time. This feels like some
WP:UPE is happening here. Ravensfire (
talk) 16:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Creator feels like a sock of
Thiyagasothy given
this and other evidence, will file at SPI after lunch. Ravensfire (
talk) 17:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 reliable sources offered--but there is a website link, so BLPPROD is out, I guess. A kind of claim of importance is made, but it's weak, and maybe A7 is out. So here's the old-fashioned way: there is no proof of notability whatsoever, not via
WP:GNG and not via
WP:NMUSIC. No record deal, no hits, no coverage, no nothing--and it reads like an autobiography.
Drmies (
talk) 15:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Due to reasons above. Also, a Google search shows very little sign of notability - some social media pages with ~3000 followers, and a self-made website.
2A00:23C4:3ADE:0:384B:3701:FAB2:E84D (
talk) 15:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. No claim of notability and no independent coverage.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 20:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 about former footballer who made a total of 1 appearance in Hungary's fully-pro
Nemzeti Bajnokság I. Although this appears to satisfy the bright-line of
WP:NFOOTBALL, it does not because there is longstanding consensus that a footballer who played a minimal amount in a fully-pro league but comprehensively fails
WP:GNG does not actually satisfy NFOOTBALL (see e.g.,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phakamani Mngadi). All of the online coverage in French-, Hungarian-, and English-language sources appears to be routine (database entries or transfer announcements, with the exception of one interview with a Luxembourgish sports blog and a post by his employer - which I believe are considered primary sources).
Jogurney (
talk) 15:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Lacks significant coverage and so it fails the GNG. There is no narrative beyond a few brief notes and there appears to be no potential for any worthwhile expansion.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 19:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Delete all rather than redirect, as no specific redirect target(s) have been identified. If people find suitable targets later they can add appropriate redirects at their discretion.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 16:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Article fails to meet
WP:GNG. We don't even have enough biographical information to write this person's full name. Mehta is a very common surname in India, for those of you who didn't know.
This RfC already confirmed that SSGs like
WP:CRIN do not supersede the GNG.
Dee03 15:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Can you please answer the question I have posed you there, regarding "extra prose"? I still have no idea what the answer would be.
Bobo. 15:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete all. I would be happy to see them all redirected to relevant lists, probably club-based, if such exist or can be created within a reasonable timespan. It does look as if the cricket project has a major problem with the number of these miniature articles that I've seen on this deletion page since I adopted it only yesterday. As I have said in several deletion discussions below, for football (my sport) or hockey or cycling or paragliding or whatever, an article must have narrative so that the reader (who?) has something to read. These "articles" are nothing more than brief notes taken from a glance at a dubious online page containing scorecard statistics. I see that the Cricket Archive site is again in evidence, usually as an external link only. It is paywalled but I am told that it is an unreliable source, self-published by a private society. Unless you are a member of the club or are prepared to pay an exorbitant subscription fee, you don't get to see stuff that is any event available upon the professionally run Cricinfo or in books like Wisden and Playfair. Okay, you have to pay for the last two but at least you get a good book for your outlay. All of these "articles" lack significant coverage and fail the GNG, as
Dee03 rightly points out. As he also says, Mehta is a very common Indian name and is among others the name of a famous
dirigent, namely
Zubin Mehta.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 19:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I cannot be certain of how up-to-date it is, but
List of Uttar Pradesh cricketers at least looks more comprehensive than many other teams' pages.
Bobo. 19:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete all Cricket has some of the largest collections of articles on people who almost nothing is known about of any sports. We are finally making headway against some of the filler articles on Wikipedia.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect to the relevant state/team list pages as appropriate - or delete if that option is considered unsuitable for some reason. The lack of biographical information means that the chances of finding in depth sources about any of these chaps is remote in the extreme. If that information does show up then we could reconsider the articles - a redirect makes this easy to establish. Given that that they each played just one match that we know of - with the exception of Narain who played in two - the chances of finding sources just now seem remote at best. Given that only Ajantha has a page on any other wiki that's linked (Tamil - contains no more than the en-wiki page) this seems even less likely.
Blue Square Thing (
talk) 12:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
delete all: per
my comment on similar bundled AfD. Existence with verification is one thing, and notability is other. These players fail
WP:GNG big time. Even if the subject passes some subject specific guideline, it doesnt mean we must have an article on it. All the coverage I could find came from the websites that try to cover everything n anything related to cricket, this doesnt establish notability. And due to the lack of persistent
significant coverage, we can delete the articles. —usernamekiran
(talk) 06:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete I think consensus is clear that the various persons with (full name and details unknown) and one (or two, in a few of these) first-class appearance are not inherently notable, regardless of what CRIN may say.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 20:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 about former footballer who made a total of 1 appearance in Trinidad & Tobago's potentially fully-pro
TT Pro League (however, per the discussion at
WT:FPL, I don't think the sources demonstrate the league is fully-pro). Although this appears to satisfy the bright-line of
WP:NFOOTBALL, it does not because there is longstanding consensus that a footballer who played a minimal amount in a fully-pro league but comprehensively fails
WP:GNG does not actually satisfy NFOOTBALL (see e.g.,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phakamani Mngadi). All of the online coverage is routine (database entries or transfer announcements).
Jogurney (
talk) 15:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Whether he scrapes by NFOOTY (doubtful in this case as nom points out) is immaterial as NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of GNG. Per my assessment and search we don't have anything close to meeting GNG here.
Icewhiz (
talk) 15:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Lacks significant coverage and so it fails the GNG. There is no narrative beyond a couple of brief notes and there appears to be no potential for any worthwhile expansion.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 19:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - one sole appearance many years ago does not make up for the massive GNG failure.
GiantSnowman 07:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 has a long history of recreation and deletion. Most recently, it was
WP:G4'd, but I've backed that out and posting here per
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 1. This is an administrative action only; I offer no opinion on the outcome. --
RoySmith(talk) 14:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete and salt. Blatant spam, as with every other iteration. Guy (
Help!) 22:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
If this page has failed
WP:GNG, I would have deleted it myself and really would like you to review in detail. I am not sure why there is a delete vote without reviewing detailed page history and a quick google search. As
Mkativerata has said
here, The case for notability here is blindingly obvious.
Meeanaya (
talk) 05:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy and strongest keep, if content is advert, it is not just the reason to salt and burn, content was again edited by a new editor
User:Tortew which was overlooked by admin in July 2019. The content was perfect when it comes to
this version. As Agarwal is one of the most notable entrepreneur in India, you just think of all reliable news references in India and you will find his name organically in all reliable news sources over the last 5 years. He not easily pass
WP:GNG and deserves a speedy keep. AS
User:Mkativerata has said at
this undeletion review, The case for notability here is blindingly obvious:
BBC,
Bloomberg,
Bloomberg profile,
Financial Times (UK) profile. Here are a few sources if you dont agree (These all news links are covering Ritesh Agarwal in-depth and not just his company, No articles in this list are written by any contributors/guests, they are written ONLY by staff)
He is also the co-chairman,
Confederation of Indian Industry for National Committee on Tourism & Hospitality and Chairman,
Confederation of Indian Industry National Committee on e-commerce. In 2016, NDTV's inaugural Unicorn Awards recognized Oyo Rooms as their Dream Chaser of the Year. In 2017, he was honored with the “Gaurav Samman” by the Government of Haryana. The award was given to people of Haryanvi origin residing outside of Haryana who have made significant contributions in various fields. In 2018, he was named Best Entrepreneur by International Institute of Hotel Management in cooperation with International Hospitality Council. He was also listed in Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award- Services Dataquest magazine named him IT Person of the Year at their ICT Awards.
He has been named on several young leader lists and awards including: The Economic Times 40 under 40 (2016); Fortune 40 under 40 (2016); Forbes 30 under 30 (2016, 2018); Barclays Hurun India Rich List for Youngest Entrepreneur under 40 (2018); and CBC-TV 18 India Business Leader Award for Young Turk of the Year (2019).
Restore it to
this version and lock it for extended user edit for one year.
Meeanaya (
talk) 04:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. The subject of the article is obviously notable. There is clearly significant coverage in reliable sources:
BBC,
Bloomberg,
Bloomberg profile,
Financial Times (UK) profile. The aricle could be better but it is not in the irretrievably spam category that warrants deletion.--
Mkativerata (
talk) 09:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep, enough sources to pass general notability.
1.39.212.15 (
talk) 09:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Sources linked by Mkativerata clearly indicate notability.
SmartSE (
talk) 11:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep sufficient coverage (
BBC in particular), and current version is not too promotional.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 20:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Coverage in local sources but no widespread coverage to indicate enduring significance. Per
WP:EVENTCRITERIA"Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes)...are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance."Polyamorph (
talk) 14:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus.
Randykitty (
talk) 15:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
No sources are cited to show that the topic is notable. In fact, no sources are cited that mention the topic at all. This may be the same topic previously discussed at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Publish and be damned, which was unanimously agreed to be deleted in 2005 and was deleted again in 2006. —
BarrelProof (
talk) 23:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. After sifting through a few pages of results for "Publish and Be Damned" + "publishing fair" on Google, the only in-depth coverage I found was
this and
this, which isn't enough to pass GNG. I also found some blog coverage, but no other reliable sources. –
Lord Bolingbroke (
talk) 05:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm changing my !vote to neutral based on the sources found by
E.M.Gregory. Unfortunately, the databases I have available to me do not index The Guardian or Artforum, so I'm not able to evaluate whether these additional sources provide significant coverage or are just routine coverage (as
BarrelProof seems to think). –
Lord Bolingbroke (
talk) 22:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Most of the identified sources, which apparently took some effort to dig up (by someone who thinks the article should be deleted), are just minor promotional material and routine announcements of what's happening around town. The only source linked in the article is identified as an "event notice" and is only 12 sentences long (and has an ungrammatical sentence). Clearly this was a pretty minor event. We should not have articles about every little fair that is held at the local high school gymnasium church crypt, which seems to be roughly what this article is. This article is doomed to perma-stub status and should be deleted. —
BarrelProof (
talk) 16:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
permanent stub status is a common and unobjectionable feature of Wikipedia. Many bried articles are worth keeping. this one does need improvement.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 16:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I object. I find it very objectionable. If something is so non-notable that even after looking for sources we can't find anything that really discusses the subject in detail, and if that situation looks like it is never going to change (e.g. because the topic is about some little annual workshop series that is now completely defunct, so that no one is likely to ever write about it in detail in the future in any reputable publication), then we should not maintain a perma-stub about it on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not be used as a vanity press, obscure fan site, or personal blogging site. —
BarrelProof (
talk) 21:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)reply
It is always a good idea to look at the most recent updates before opining. And, when sources have been found, doing a fresh
WP:BEFORE search can be enlightening. I speak as an editor who often changes my opinion after someone sources a page that my initial
WP:BEFORE could not source.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 16:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I did review the latest changes before making that comment. —
BarrelProof (
talk) 23:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
p.s. - we really should have a stand alone article on Wellington and his phrase.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 11:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
There is already an article on Wellington and it discusses his phrase. —
BarrelProof (
talk) 16:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes, I am aware. What I intended to suggest is that an article on the subsequent uses to which the phrase has been put would be worth having.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 16:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - There is plenty written about this event. I did a simple article search in my library's article database for the event and its curators and found seven (7) references, e.g. Zappaterra, Y. (2006). Punk publishing. Design Week, 21(30), 36-36. I find the dismissive tone above "about some little annual workshop series that is now completely defunct" objectionable. Wikipedia is the ideal venue for such information. It is what many people come here for. Emphatic Keep.
Gerntrash (
talk) 14:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Furthermore, it was cited in this doctoral dissertation: Sullivan, Molly E. The Multivalent Platforms of Alternative Art Publications as Agents of Authentic Cultural Change, University of Southern California, 2010.Gerntrash (
talk) 14:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
*
WP:HEY nice job of sourcing by
User:Gerntrash. And a reminder that the fact that a book fair is now defunct is not an argument for deleting it, we have thousands or defunct things in
Category:Former entities, thousands more in
Category:Defunct media and other similar categories. Contrary to Nom's assertion that "because the topic is about some little annual workshop series that is now completely defunct... no one is likely to ever write about it in detail in the future in any reputable publication" people do continue to publish copiously about many small defunct events.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 15:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
The sources are all very short pieces that have no by-line in sources that seem to be mostly user-generated such as imdb, haber life, kimnereli where you can email your bio for publication etc etc. The sites seem to have no staff. This is a case of way
WP:TOOSOON. Nothing in a before search of interest
Dom from Paris (
talk) 12:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC).reply
Keep it is not a valid reason for me because there is no such thing as every news headline will be long, and when it comes to IMDb, there may be only known people in IMDb.
Paulahted(T) 8 August 2019 (UTC) —
Paulahted (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Paulahted: the above comment is your only edit to Wikipedia – you joined Wikipedia just to comment on this AfD?
Richard3120 (
talk) 20:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete All the sources are the same biographical paragraph, he does't pass
WP:GNG he maybe notable someday but he's not notable now. Whispering(
t) 15:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Doesn't seem to be notable. The sources are unreliable and they do not help with establishing the subject's notability. He does not pass
WP:GNG, at least for now. Keivan.fTalk 06:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Resources seem to be sufficient. It's okay to stay. What is mentioned in the news is that the person (child) is slowly becoming a nationally recognized child. Kimnereli.net is a site where only well-known people are present and their personal information is provided. Sites like: famousbirthdays.com The information available by e-mail is an option for lesser-known people, and in such cases there is the “special request” sign in parentheses.
Prianhana(T) 7:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC) —
Prianhana (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep editors of kimnereli style sites find things like birth date, height, biography from the internet. If they can’t find. E-mail option is available to receive e-mail from people who know it or from the manager of that famous name In very rare cases famous people can also e-mail.
Huriyeot45(T) 9:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC) —
Huriyeot45 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment to closing administrator:
WP:MEATPUPPET alert – every one of the "keep" voters has joined Wikipedia in the last 24 hours, and all of them by coincidence have decided to use the same font for their signatures.
Richard3120 (
talk) 13:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - as not currently meeting
WP:NBIO, created by a sock and supported by a flock of sox.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 07:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep There seems to be some problems with the sources, but I think the person is worth notable.
User:Kimfromkorea (
talk) 10:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC) blocked sock
Dom from Paris (
talk) 16:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep Once the necessary resources are added and corrected, the person can be everytime notable. (
talk) 16:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)—(
talk) Striking yet another blocked sockpuppet !vote...this must be a record! --
Dom from Paris (
talk) 12:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Although I accept that 'ethical banking' is a real phenomenon, this list is inevitably problematic.
The nature of the title gives it an innate POV slant that is going to be very difficult to overcome (and are we saying that banks not included in this list are not ethical?).
The criteria for inclusion are unclear, all banks presumably consider themselves 'ethical'.
It's a pretty broad term that is impossible to objectively assess. Just look at
the section in the main article about judging what is ethical. If Mill, Kant and Aristotle can't agree then how will Wikipedia editors?
Finally, what one source might describe as 'ethical' will vary from what another might.
A redirection to
Ethical banking could be an option but I oppose that on the grounds that there is currently no such list in that page, and I would avoid ever creating one for precisely the reasons given here.
Hugsyrup 12:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Ethical is a subjective phrase, and even if the term ethical bank reffered to a bank with a specific type of business model, there is no objective way of determining whether a bank matches the criteria. --
PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 13:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Only banks identified as such by reliable sources should be included (e.g. The Guardian[9], The Ecologist[10], a Journal of Business Ethics article
[11]), but that's an issue for cleanup, not deletion. The delete lvoters are focusing on the general meaning of the word "ethical" rather than the specialized, financial one.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 19:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
In addition, how are we to know that those articles are referring to a 'specialized financial meaning'? None of the three links you provide refer to any objective specialized meaning, they simply describe a bank as ethical without further explanation, or describe it as a strategic positioning of that bank. Indeed, the Ecologist article notably places ethical bank in
scare quotes every time, which rather illustrates my point.
Hugsyrup 07:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:OR and
WP:NOTDIR. Ethical is a point-of-view that may differ depending on who defines something as ethical.
Ajf773 (
talk) 19:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete This is a super subjective term, all the more so considering how long banks can exist.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 15:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Agree with nom and others; this is highly subjective and therefore highly problematic. Even if we only listed those banks that were noted by independent sources to be "ethical", this is subject to change without additional coverage. Nope.
Pegnawl (
talk) 21:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Subject does not appear to
WP:NHOCKEY. The Polish league isn't considered for any criteria and though he plays for Poland internationally, he has never played in a World Championship or an Olympics (he played in an Olympics qualifier but that doesn't count as Olympics participation). He was a first team All-Star in the USHL but crucially the league is not listed among the leagues in criteria #3. The Canadian junior leagues (OHL, WHL, QMJHL) are counted but the American junior leagues (USHL, NAHL) aren't. Therefore he fails #3. He also doesn't have any preeminent college awards to pass #4.
Tay87 (
talk) 09:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Does not meet the sport-specific criteria and coverage is not significant enough to warrant GNG.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 19:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 article about non-notable company with no substantial, independent coverage. Does not meet
WP:NORG, and particularly
WP:ORGCRITE. A previous prod was removed by a significant contributor, which is why I'm bringing this to AFD.
Hugsyrup 09:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete G11 per PuzzledVegtable, unsourced and clearly promotional. ~~ OxonAlex- talk 18:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete per G11. Pretty much cut-and-dried self-promotion.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 19:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge to parent company
Holley Performance Products. This article, which has been here for almost 12 years, does not qualify for speedy deletion as obvious spam. As written now it reads more like a general description of the company, its history and its products, with no
price list or call to action as might be expected in blatant promotion. But this standalone article of a fairly known brand does have its problems.
StonyBrook (
talk) 01:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Does not meet the sport-specific criteria and coverage is not significant enough to warrant GNG.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 18:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 fails
WP:NHOCKEY. Only played 83 DEL games before his career was cut short due to injury. Has no preeminent honours and did not play for Germany at a senior World Championship.
Tay87 (
talk) 09:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Does not meet the sport-specific criteria and coverage is not significant enough to warrant GNG.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 18:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus to delete. I would encourage
User:Bobo192 to tone it down a bit with the accusations of lying.Making mistakes is human and AGF is expected from all editors, especially sysops.
Randykitty (
talk) 14:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment he does appear in the database:
here, but it reveals no further information, and remains a bare statistical profile.
Harriastalk 08:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
There you go, Dee. Now not only are we trying to censor information, but we are lying in the process of doing so. The sad state of Wikipedia.
Bobo. 10:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Come on
Bobo192, you're better than that. I'm confident that
Dee03 searched in good faith, but didn't think to split the name. I only found it by trawling through manually.
Harriastalk 10:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Please tell me you can at least understand my frustration. I've been working my tuchis off for 15 years only for people to come along and say my work is unacceptable. This is why I'm upset.
Bobo. 10:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Don't accuse me of lying. I input the exact name provided by you in the article and got zero results on the Saurashtra website. I was searching that site only hoping to find this person's full name as I had just found
another Saurashtra cricketer's first name there. Now even if this cricketer's name is found (in a different form) on some other statistical website, it does not change the fact that he does not meet GNG.
Dee03 10:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Although he meets
WP:CRIN, that is only a rule of thumb to suggest whether a player will meet
WP:N. It is clear that based on the sources we have, and those that can be found from a Google search, that there is only routine coverage of this player, forming a bare statistical listing. Lacking significant coverage, this subject does not meet the
WP:GNG.
Harriastalk 08:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
He does meet N. This is the whole point. N states "or".
Bobo. 10:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes, it does. However, while some SSGs such as
WP:PROF state that they are independent and "explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline",
WP:NSPORT and by extension
WP:CRIN are not an alternative, as confirmed by community consensus in
this discussion.
Harriastalk 10:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Then you are lying too. Well done. Lying has got this whole project and this whole debate where it is. What a sad state of affairs.
Bobo. 10:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
"CRIN is just a rule of thumb which suggests whether a player will meet N". CRIN is just as much a "guideline" as N. As long as N states "or", the two guidelines are of equal footing.
Bobo. 10:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Not in the slightest no, your understanding is flawed.
Harriastalk 10:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I know that. I was just pointing out the irony that both were of equal footing and yet one is given more credence than the other even though N clearly states or.
Bobo. 10:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - Every Ranji Trophy cricketer I've created is on an old version of my user page. Just delete them all. This is beyond a joke now. The bored deletionists who wish to censor information because they feel it is unnecessary have won. It was only a matter of time.
Bobo. 09:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - I have a universe to attend to. I may be back. I may not...
Bobo. 10:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete- another virtually empty article about an obscure cricketer, full name unknown, based on pure stats databases containing not a single word of prose. Consensus is that this bare-bones sourcing is insufficient for a stand-alone article. A merge might be possible if there is a good target article. Calling people liars merely for disagreeing isn't acceptable behaviour.
ReykYO! 12:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
A claim was made. It was immediately proven to be false. How much more information do you want in the article? Any further information would be superfluous and unnecessary.
Bobo. 14:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Lacks significant coverage and so it fails the GNG which overrides sport-specific criteria. It consists of brief notes transcribed from a statistical source and there appears to be no potential for any worthwhile expansion to a readable narrative.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 13:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete a non-notable criketeer who does not meet the general notability guidelines.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 00:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
List of Saurashtra cricketers - this seems better than deleting and the incomplete list can be worked on at some point I'm sure. The lack of biographical information and single known match suggest very strongly that suitable sources for a standalone article are unlikely to be provided in the foreseeable future. If they are then we can create the article easily enough.
Blue Square Thing (
talk) 12:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete I think consensus is clear that the various persons with (full name and details unknown) and one first-class appearance are not inherently notable, regardless of what CRIN may say.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 20:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Does have some coverage in independent sources but it all seems a short-lived fame, almost BLP1E. —
kashmīrīTALK 19:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete per nom. Looks like promotion of her here. How the person got photo of her? --Harshilwant to talk? 14:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Firm consensus that notability is shown, and that articles created by blocked users but with substantive edits from others users aren't subject to deletion
(non-admin closure)Nosebagbear (
talk) 10:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Aside from any issues with the initial creator of the article, it's a widely distributed mainland Chinese television series and should be considered notable.
matt91486 (
talk) 05:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - blocked user. Keeping only encourages sockpuppetry.
Onel5969TT me 02:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - topic is certainly notable, and the blocked user is not the only major contributor. -
Zanhe (
talk) 03:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Failing GNG and NCORP. Sources seem largely aligned to PR/churnalism or are mentions in passing (short product intros). Available search results yield mostly routine corporate announcement or further aligned reporting. May be too soon for an independent article. pseudonymJake Brockmantalk 07:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Agree that, at best, this is
WP:TOOSOON. I also tried to find reliable sources on these fruit snacks, but also encountered food industry blogs, press releases and churnalism, not to mention a lot of otherwise reliable articles on the non-related
pork rind snacks. Alas, there is yet nothing more.
Geoff | Who, me? 20:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
magazine that fails
WP:NMEDIA. Supplied references are to a study of all media in Bhutan that mentions it but is not significant coverage of it, a news report on its first issue and a directory entry. Google finds no
WP:significant coverage.
noq (
talk) 07:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:GNG, and by extension
WP:N, and the coverage is routine statistical listings. The subject made a single first-class appearance and is long since retired. Technically, the subject meets
WP:CRIN, but this forms a part of
WP:NSPORT, which clearly states that "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". Per
this discussion, community consensus is that "subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply." In this case, coverage is so meagre that we do not even have the players full name.
Harriastalk 07:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete all No coverage found other than statistical profiles on Cricinfo and CricketArchive. None of these cricketers meet GNG.
Dee03 08:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - Every Ranji Trophy cricketer I've created is on an old version of my user page. Just delete them all. This is beyond a joke now. The bored deletionists who wish to censor information because they feel it is unnecessary have won. It was only a matter of time.
Bobo. 09:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - it does not fail N. N clearly states or. This is the fundamental problem we are dealing with. A complete contradiction.
Bobo. 10:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. I agree completely with the nominator's reasons and don't really think I'd be doing anyone any good by trying to add to them. --
Mkativerata (
talk) 10:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete- more empty microstubs based solely on score cards and statistical entries, without a word of prose between them. Consensus is that this bare-bones sourcing is not enough to support a stand-alone article. As the nominator points out, this SNG does not trump the general guideline. A merge or redirect to some suitable list article might be possible if a candidate target can be identified.
ReykYO! 12:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
What extra prose would you expect? Surely any other material would be superfluous.
Bobo. 14:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
These are purportedly biographical articles, with a person as their subjects. Biographical material, explaining this person's life and works, is the expected content of a biography.
Uncle G (
talk) 17:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete all six articles. There is a lack of significant coverage and so they each fail the GNG which overrides sport-specific criteria. The articles consist of brief notes transcribed from statistical sources and there doesn't appear to be any potential for worthwhile expansion to readable narratives.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 13:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Same question. What extra prose would you expect that wouldn't be utterly superfluous?
Bobo. 14:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Bobo192: I believe it's not so much extra prose as extra sourcing that is needed to prove that there is significant coverage of the subject in the wider media. As I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the key ruling or guideline within the GNG is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Equally, and again correct me if I'm wrong, sport-specific criteria such as NFOOTY and the cricket one only seek to establish potential notability within the scope of the sport itself and that can then be used as a qualifier for GNG consideration (obviously some sporting subjects could achieve GNG without meeting any sport-specific criteria). It is the GNG that counts because you cannot write an article (and by that I mean article, not brief notes) unless there are adequate sources available. You cannot transcribe statistical data into brief notes and call that an article. I would not be against the statistical data being used in a relevant list, subject to sourcing.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 15:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
We have demonstrated over and over that those who compile Cricket Archive and Cricinfo are independent of the subject - and of each other. As for "the media", and i'm speaking entirely tongue-in-cheek here, I trust the media now a lot less than I used to! ;)
Bobo. 15:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Bobo192: Looking at
S. K. Desai, as I have a friend of that name, there are no citations in the article which has four short sentences only. The inference is that the information came from the Cricket Archive site, which you mention above, because it is given as an external link. That site is paywalled and so I can't access it but I'm reliably informed that it is the cricketing equivalent of Soccerbase except that it is not professionally run. Received wisdom is that Cricket Archive is self-published by a private club or society of some sort, so it's like an "in-house" publication, same as an online parish magazine or whatever. Cricinfo, of course, is run by ESPN and it does articles as well as statistics so no problem with that, but this Cricket Archive site looks like a dubious source to me.
(Please forgive me, because this reply is to this part of the post I've re-indented slightly). I missed this comment, sorry. Back in 2009 when this article was first created, I created about eight zillion articles like this and, as was the custom at the time, I put external links on the bottom rather than inline citations. We'd be quoting basically the same information and the same sources. And even if the article did have "narrative", we'd be quoting from exactly the same sources as we would without. My simple answer when a situation like that is easily fixable, by virtue of WP:SOFIXIT. The fact that these articles are being deleted in spite of these external links upsets me greatly - as there are hundreds which are missing such links, as I've outlined elsewhere.
Bobo. 22:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I know much, much more about football than about cricket but, even though Soccerbase is a professional setup, I would not support an article based entirely on stats lifted from Soccerbase. An article, almost by definition, must contain narrative and a good article must have a flow of narrative. You do not get narrative from a statistical site that gives an incomplete name, as recorded on a scorecard, and tells you that he played in one match and didn't score a run, which is the sum total of Mr Desai's career.
You mentioned fifteen years earlier and that is about the time I've been a reader of Wikipedia. Given a busy career, I only made edits when I saw something that needed correcting or, occasionally, expanding. I didn't become a member till after I retired end of last year. While I was primarily a reader, I used to hate it whenever I followed up a Google search and found something like
S. K. Desai. Sorry, but it isn't an article. It is a transcription of raw statistical data that just doesn't pass muster and is indefensible. The GNG is a good principle and it's right. These NFOOTY variations are okay up to a point but that point is potential qualification for GNG; and potential is never certain, only potential. Apologies for the length of this reply.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 18:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I can say very little other than the fact that it saddens me not only that GNG exists but that notability guidelines are contradicted on WP namespace pages themselves.
My argument throughout all of this is the same argument as that of a certain founder of this site. Wikipedia is the sum of all human knowledge. Not "all human knowledge except for that which other people find offensive". And that is what I've been attempting to do all along. Censoring information because we don't like it is morally wrong.
Bobo. 22:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
You are not addressing the documenting the person in-depth part.
Uncle G (
talk) 17:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Hard to direct to a category. If there is an article
List of Gujarat cricketers, then if people so desire, they can redirect it there, surely... *rifles around Wikipedia* There is, and nobody keeps it updated. On what basis these list articles were created in the first place, and how the information was selectively chosen, I've no idea...
Bobo. 15:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete all none come even close to meeting the general notability guidelines.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 00:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: existence with verifiability is one thing, notability is an other. I ran searches for two of the subjects; all I could get is stats, or the websites that cover everything related to cricket. It doesnt establish notability. I will cast my vote soon (in a few hours) for these bundled AfDs (after running searches for the lot of dozen players or so), and most probably it is going to be a delete. —usernamekiran
(talk) 06:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
List of Gujarat cricketers. I know this is an incomplete list, but it allows the key information to be retained and can be developed when someone has time. Without more specific biographical information I doubt we're going to be able to find properly in depth sources on these chaps anytime soon - if at all. Each played just one match and we really don't know anything beyond that and a name and initials. If sources became available I would have no issue with recreating the article - by redirecting to a list that becomes easier to do.
Blue Square Thing (
talk) 13:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
delete all: per
my comment above. Existence with verification is one thing, and notability is other. These players fail
WP:GNG big time. Even if the subject passes some subject specific guideline, it doesnt mean we must have an article on it. All the coverage I could find came from the websites that try to cover everything n anything related to cricket, this doesnt establish notability. And due to the lack of persistent
significant coverage, we can delete the articles. —usernamekiran
(talk) 06:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete I think consensus is clear that the various persons with (full name and details unknown) and one first-class appearance are not inherently notable, regardless of what CRIN may say.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 20:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:GNG, and by extension
WP:N, and the coverage is routine statistical listings. The subject made a single first-class appearance and is long since retired. Technically, the subject meets
WP:CRIN, but this forms a part of
WP:NSPORT, which clearly states that "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". Per
this discussion, community consensus is that "subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply." In this case, coverage is so meagre that we do not even have the players full name.
Harriastalk 07:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete No coverage found other than statistical profiles on Cricinfo and CricketArchive. This cricketer does not meet GNG.
Dee03 08:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - Every Ranji Trophy cricketer I've created is on an old version of my user page. Just delete them all. This is beyond a joke now. The bored deletionists who wish to censor information because they feel it is unnecessary have won. It was only a matter of time.
Bobo. 09:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - it does not fail N. N clearly states or. This is the fundamental problem we are dealing with. A complete contradiction. As for "in clear cases where GNG does not apply", that is clearly stated on N.
Bobo. 10:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
As I've replied to you elsewhere, your understanding is flawed. Some SSGs such as
WP:PROF explicitly state that they override the
WP:GNG, which is what that clause covers.
WP:NSPORT, and
WP:CRIN as part of that, do not do that.
Harriastalk 10:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Double standards even within SSGs. Wow. If that isn't flawed, I would like to know what is.
Bobo. 10:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete- This article is based on raw statistical entries that do not contain a word of prose between them. Given that we only have a first initial and a (common) surname for this player there might even be issues distinguishing him from similarly named people active around the same time. Harrias is correct that
WP:CRIN defers to the general notability guideline, and not the other way around. A merge to a suitable list article might be possible if there is a good target.
ReykYO! 12:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The only other N-anything Kumar played 17 seasons later....
Bobo. 14:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Lacks "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and so it fails the GNG. This is exactly like
S. K. Desai below with brief statistical transcriptions, no citations and apparently taken from the paywalled Cricket Archive site (mentioned as an external link) which, I am reliably informed, is an in-house self-published source that contains statistics only and no narrative.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 19:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete The cricket inclusion criteria are clearly flawed. So for that matter are the football ones, where 2 and three leagues per country, even in a country like the US where football is not followed much at all, are included. Our inclusion criteria for actors are more demanding than for many sportspeople. It is time for us to stop giving a pass for one game, we do not give passes for one film, even when the role is significant, which is a word that does not apply to the relationship between the one appearance in a game and the role of some of these sportspeople in it.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
WP:NACTOR is an excellent comparison. Half the
actors who appeared in the film which won this year's Best Picture Oscar don't seem to have their own Wikipedia articles. And like you said, inclusion criteria need to be tighter and more consistent across all fields.
Dee03 11:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete or, if anyone wants to create one, redirect to a suitable list. A lack any other biographical information tends to suggest that we're unlikely, at this stage, to be able to find any sources which deal with the subject in detail - I certainly can't find anything. That we know of only two matches he played in - one club match I think as well as his FC match - makes this more likely in my view. If such sources become available I would, as always, have no issue with the article being recreated.
Blue Square Thing (
talk) 11:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete I think consensus is clear that the various persons with (full name and details unknown) and one first-class appearance are not inherently notable, regardless of what CRIN may say.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 20:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominating this for deletion mostly due to not finding it being notable enough to have its own article. Cannot find any reliable sources that covered this series either.
GamerPro64 05:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. The references include personal blogs, the subject itself, and other self published sources. --
PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 13:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 08:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:ARTIST. Insignificant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Non major awards or Top 100 lists.
Comatmebro (
talk) 03:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - I was initially inclined to !vote delete, but two things are giving me pause.
WP:NMUSIC #11 counts placed in
rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network as a signifier of notability, and this artist had a video at least air on MTV - was it possible it was added to a rotation? Possibly more strongly, #12 counts Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.
This article notes Wordplay’s rise began with a feature on MTV’s RapFix Live and that turned into making Music for the Underdog. Were either of these a "substantial broadcast segment"? I'm having trouble telling right now. I will try to look into further, but if you are able to conclusively answer either of these questions before me, it might settle things.
MarginalCost (
talk) 13:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment Not inclined to believe it aired on MTV; it may have been in the rotation on
MTV Jams perhaps (a lesser-viewed sister channel), but by 2009 if you aired a video on MTV, it was likely only in a late night slot, not as a prime attraction. And according to
this, it seems like the feature segment was only hosted on the MTV website. Nate•(
chatter) 16:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm not seeing where in that link it says anything about on air vs. website-only.
MarginalCost (
talk) 16:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Generally over the last ten years, short feature segments about music have been web-only for MTV overall (it's been a longtime problem where low-wattage artists that have come to AfD have claimed they've been on MTV, only to be a web-only clip very buried on their website).
This link about it indeed airing on MTV Jams beginning only in 2013 clearly notes RapFix is 'the popular webseries'. Nate•(
chatter) 17:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - per above discussion. It seems the series was not aired on "a national TV network" when WordPlay would have been featured, if the piece was even "substantial" in the first place. No evidence of placement into rotation. No evidence of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
MarginalCost (
talk) 19:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Nothing to indicate notability, in an article which makes unsubstantiated attempts to suggest significance, such as saying that a song "was huge success" when none of the cited sources says anything remotely suggesting that it did, and nor does any other source I have seen. The fact that one of the sources is a report of the fact that he "starred" in a video promoting one of his own recordings is an indication of how far this article is scraping the barrel in trying to find citations to give an impression of notability.
Breaking sticks (
talk) 20:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per above discussion.
Deb (
talk) 11:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 08:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Realistically, everything out there about her with the exception of appearing in Drake's music video (not really an accomplishment) is gossip. Someone even lacked the self-preservation to go to the notorious Lipstick Alley!
Trillfendi (
talk) 23:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Borderline Keep People of equally dubious notoriety have Wikipedia articles, after all — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
JasonKY (
talk •
contribs) 01:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete non-notable entertainer. Yes, lots of other articles are on people equally as unnotable, which is why we have pretty much constantly 200 or more articles on people up at AfD, plus more going through procedural and speedy deletion, and with some of these articles having lasted a decade or more the best indication is we have lots more articles on non-notable people that do not get deleted, probably in part because creating a deletion nomination takes at least 5 steps of editing, and in addition you are epected to do an indepth before search prior to moninating, and doing this process will often get you berated and accused of all sorts of ill will for even suggesting we should delete an article on someone who just had a daughter die, or is is a member of a "protected class", or who might have been covered by a newspaper that we no longer have because all the copies burned in a fire, or whose following numbers on Instagram clearly show they are notable, and on and on.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 06:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Scott Burley (
talk) 02:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Sources are mostly internet. Agree w JPL that this is a non-notable entertainer.
Agricola44 (
talk) 17:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Notability is not temporary. A possible merge can be discussed on the article's talk page (or done in a
WP:BOLD edit).
Randykitty (
talk) 14:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The topic isn't significantly more notable than daily developments happening at its time, and has now lost significance. Even the 1st linked webpage in External links section had changed title.
Dannyniu (
talk) 08:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak keepThis 2008 article at
Tom's Hardware suggests that it was a milestone at the history of supercomputers. Quote: "Desktop supercomputers became a reality today as Nvidia announced the release of its new GPU-based Tesla personal supercomputer". --
Gprscrippers (
talk) 17:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)reply
That's just one source, are you very certain that's not over-hyped and unreliable? I think the article is just a routine report of a niche product. The article in its current form is just a description of a proprietary technological setup, having no mention of its sigificance. And after all these years, Nvidia is no longer the sole provider of GPGPU ICs.
Dannyniu (
talk) 03:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Forgot to mention, the French Wikipedia removed the corresponding article back in 2012.
Dannyniu (
talk) 03:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Scott Burley (
talk) 02:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Nvidia. There are just enough sources
[12],
[13],
[14] to support this being significant when it was released, and I'd point out that
notability is not temporary so it cannot have 'lost its significance'. However, I'd agree with the nominator that there is not enough substantial coverage of this specific device to merit a standalone article.
Hugsyrup 11:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Compared to most Filipino radio articles for smaller stations, this meets BROADCAST; plenty of sources to its existence. Nate•(
chatter) 02:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - One of a flood of entirely non-notable radio stations that have had articles created recently. Does not come close to meeting
WP:NCORP, which is the required standard.
Hugsyrup 16:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Scott Burley (
talk) 02:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete: No significant coverage.
SL93 (
talk) 17:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
It isn't about if it exists. It's about notability.
SL93 (
talk) 00:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 08:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge into
Holy card, this is maybe as notable as the "Collecting" heading on this article. Obviously a great deal of condensing would be needed.--
Epiphyllumlover (
talk) 05:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete The single radio interview isn't sufficient for notability; the rest of the references are not independent or reliable sources, and some are promotional. I couldn't find any sources to add to the article to support it.
Schazjmd(talk) 05:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Scott Burley (
talk) 02:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Participation in this debate was rather poor and there also seem to be some misunderstandings (i.e., a "delete" !vote per someone who seemed to be arguing for "keep"). Therefore no prejudice to re-nomination in a month or so if better sourcing is not forthcoming.
Randykitty (
talk) 14:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Both sources mentioned in the article fail
WP:ORGDEPTH - they discuss a lack of suregeons at the hospital, but not much in depth information about the hospital (year of founding, etc.). Same goes for the sources I could find when searching on Google.
MrClog (
talk) 21:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)reply
comment: The hospital serves throat deceases, and also serves patents. These are really remarkable feats. I mean, how many other hospitals serve patents, or try to cure E/N/T problems of deceased people? —usernamekiran
(talk) 21:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)reply
The article is pretty rudimentary. I'm not even sure if the name of the hospital is accurate. But it would be very surprising if a public hospital of this size was not notable, and there seems to be plenty of coverage of it in reputable sources.
Rathfelder (
talk) 22:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)reply
I haven't been able to find any
WP:ORGDEPTH stuff. If the hospital really has a different name, that may explain it. --
MrClog (
talk) 23:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)reply
It is almost impossible to find detailed coverage of any hospital. They are too complicated. It have to be pieced together over time.
Rathfelder (
talk) 14:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)reply
If there aren't sources meeting ORGDEPTH yet, then the article should be deleted and recreated once these sources exist. --
MrClog (
talk) 22:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further consensus needed at this stage to decide an outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StevenCrossinHelp resolve disputes! 01:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Scott Burley (
talk) 02:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Usernamekiran, I believe Rathfelder is arguing against deletion, but I am not sure. --
MrClog (
talk) 12:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —
JJMC89 (
T·C) 02:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
small-town mayor. Not notable and does not meet
WP:POLITICIAN. As with any local politician, he received coverage from the local press, but that's not enough to meet the guideline.
Rusf10 (
talk) 02:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Coverage is local, and
Metuchen, New Jersey's population was only 13K (in 2010), so being its mayor confers no particular notability.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 19:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete contrary to what some editors have thought there is not a special exception that makes New Jersey mayors default notable.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 01:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Concede that the page should be parred back, but Busch is mentioned regularly in statewide and regional news outlets and qualifies as receiving "significant press coverage."
Homerseditor (
talk) 20:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete hasn't garnered anything more than routine coverage and doesn't pass
WP:NPOL. Best,
GPL93 (
talk) 00:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete coverage is local, fails
WP:NPOL, we do not keep mayors of small towns unless they pass
WP:GNG for other reasons (otherwise notable, or achieved notability over an area significantly larger than their town.)
SportingFlyerT·C 07:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Homerseditor, you've already voted above, so I've struck your second !vote, though your comments are still welcome - but please also see
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Some of these may also need to be deleted.
SportingFlyerT·C 17:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Lankey and Bollwage preside over populations over 100K (the unofficial cutoff), while Hameeduddin is a pioneer of sorts. I've nominated Cahill for deletion (despite his 28 years in office, and counting) due to a lack of significant media coverage.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 19:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete not notable fails wp:npol from a city of less than 15,000.
Lightburst (
talk) 23:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The criteria at
WP:NHOSPITALS are met easily enough, but I can't see where that was achieved for this example - no in-depth coverage is provided, and I couldn't find anything beyond the passing mentions already referenced. Possibly editors who get lost less easily in the inventive grammar and complex nomenclature of the relevant search results may be more lucky. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs) 17:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs) 17:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Scott Burley (
talk) 02:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete – in reviewing
WP:NHOSPITALS, the hospital doesn't seem to satisfy the in-depth coverage criterion, and from what I have been able to find the majority of coverage seems to be limited to passing mentions of a government TB hospital without much comment on the hospital's organizational structure or history aside from brief news stories about recent operational developments. This is reflected in both my own searches and the references in the article, which seem to establish the notability of
King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam, moreso than Government TB and Chest Hospital whose name doesn't appear in any significant coverage. More often than not, the hospital appears in press coverage through association with other Visakhapatnam hospitals rather than by virtue of its own notability.
TheAustinMan(
Talk ⬩
Edits) 22:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Scott Burley (
talk) 02:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. I think the coverage is significant enough for the GNG.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 12:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Has made a "unique, prolific or innovative contributions" to skateboarding (or close enough to as per San Fran Examiner article pointed out above), plenty of coverage before and after his death (again as pointed out above). This is a keep.
Josalm64rc (
talk) 01:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 need to think about this one more, but am inclined to keep. There has been significant coverage by multiple reliable independent secondary sources (over a number of years even). But it's all because of lawsuits, both by them and against them, and FDA regulation. Example of coverage:
BuzzFeed News. There has been a smattering of other coverage of its service like from this
NYT blog in addition to lots of Chicago Tribune coverage the best of which is
[15],
[16], and
[17]. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Barkeep49 (
talk •
contribs) 00:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Question: doesn't coverage because of lawsuits count as coverage? If the lawsuit is what brings the company the attention of the press and results in news articles being published about the company in relation to the lawsuit, isn't that coverage? If the sources discussing lawsuits are not to be counted here, then it looks like the original deletion nomination should maybe have been made per
WP:ILLCON and not
WP:CORPDEPTH overall, but then I don't think the lawsuit-related sources are suggesting that the company has been acting illegally (which is what that standard is poised to address), only that it has been legally banned from offering its services in certain US states. Visibly isn't in the news because of illegal activity (to my knowledge). Let me also be clear: I have no
WP:COI here in creating this article— I do, however, have poor eyesight (!) and was doing research on vision tests when I came across Visibly and thought, "Hey, this may warrant an article," and then found sources, and then wrote it up using those sources— nothing more nor less. Just to be clear!
A loose necktie (
talk) 18:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Scott Burley (
talk) 02:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:BIO and
WP:GNG. All references included in the article were authored or co-authored by Natti Ronel. A search for significant coverage from independent
reliable sources did not yield anything that would satisfy notability guidelines to merit the inclusion of the subject on Wikipedia.
ƏXPLICIT 01:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
ran a news archive search and aded 2
WP:RS on his early career. Also ran his name throughgScholar search, he is quite widely cited, but arguably not widely cited enough to keep. I am inclining towards a
WP:NOTPROMO DELETE, but waiting to see what folks who work in counseling, psychology have to say.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 14:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC) Note: On august 8, 2019 E.M.Gregory has been indefinitely blocked as a sockreply
Delete Not notable. The nominator is correct. Primary sourced article -
WP:PROMOTION.
Lightburst (
talk) 03:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —
JJMC89 (
T·C) 02:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:SNOW and
WP:MILL. He seems to be a very ordinary character actor.
Bearian (
talk) 16:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete unfortunately as he does have one leading role in a notable production but that is not enough on its own so it is
WP:TOOSOON at this stage, though he may well be notable in the future with more roles, thanks
Atlantic306 (
talk) 20:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —
JJMC89 (
T·C) 02:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Subject fails
WP:NHOCKEY. Only 167 games played in the AHL and 200 is needed to pass #2. No preeminent honours to pass #3 either.
Tay87 (
talk) 00:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Does not meet the sport-specific criteria and coverage is not significant enough to warrant GNG. Also, bound to be no more than a sentence or two transcribed from a statistical source. There has to be enough to produce a readable narrative.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 13:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.