The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article was created by
User:Hongwei0921, who is almost certainly the subject of this article. Almost all of the Google search results are for different people by the same name. Furthermore, this article was nominated for speedy deletion twice; its creator removed the tags. If the subject is indeed notable, then it would be best if we
started over. ―
SusmuffinTalk23:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep this is a pretty clear keep as, for starters, he is in multiple museum collections. For example the
Art Institute of Chicago has some of his work. When I see collection(s), I generally figure they are notable as it is hard to get into collections. Also, we have a policy to the same effect (
WP:ARTIST 4)d). After the collections, I look around for sources. I see a profile interview in Scultpure magazine. So he meets WP:ARTIST. The fact that he might have edited the article himself can be corrected through the use of the delete key on any non-encylopedic text.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
07:09, 27 June 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.
Oppose Passes the GNG (even before his disapperance and death). ENT doesn't override GNG, and NYOUTUBE is an essay. --
Masem (
t)
22:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Doesn't matter for the GNG. As it says for BLP, "A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.", so requiring ENT to be met is not appropriate. --
Masem (
t)
23:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose I strongly oppose this as I created the page and there are MANY notable and good references so I don't even know why this is a discussion. The page is trending on Wikipedia and should be kept up.
AceAlen📞23:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
The essay
WP:NYOUTUBE says However, in practice, editors involved in deletion debates consider that a YouTuber needs to meet *both* WP:GNG *and* WP:ENT. That's why I've nominated it.
Masum Reza📞23:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - clearly passes
WP:GNG.
WP:ENT does not override the former as it is under the "Additonal criteria" section of the Notability policy. Meeting it only makes it more likely to be notable, but it does not guarantee it and the reverse also holds true; not meeting the additional criteria does not mean the subject in question is not notable. It meets the basic criteria as multiple reliable sources have covered on his mental episodes months prior. Not to mention the already huge coverage his death is receiving. Even if
WP:ENT did override
WP:GNG, the subject in the article still meets criteria n°2 and possibly n°3. --
letcreate123 (
talk)
23:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose this article has good references, is trending, and the person in question is a very popular figure. I don't see anything wrong with the article at all. Seems like this deletion proposal is racially motivated, if you ask me. 23:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.194.42.34 (
talk)
Can we not with the racism accusations? Even if the nomination may be poorly justified (which I agree, mind you), a proper debate is taking place and jumping to the conclusion that this AfD nomination is "racially motivated" is not the way to respond and it comes across as ad hominem. --
letcreate123 (
talk)
23:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep the article can stay, it has plenty of reliable citations for it to stay up. Subscriber count shouldn't determine weather an article should stay.
Michael14375 (
talk)
00:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep I should believe this article shouldn't be deleted as readers, especially most of his followers on Youtube, can read his bibliography and I should consider it staying here in the article space.
VictorTorres2002 (
talk)
00:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep For readers of Wikipedia, like myself, there are many other YouTubers that have articles here for viewers and fans. At the time of his death, fans across social media paid numerous tributes and became trending. As he had a large fan base, deleting this is considered as disrespectful by not keeping his legacy alive.
Zacharyalejandro (
talk)
01:17, 27 June 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. After two relists there is no consensus and with no comments since the 16 June I don't think that a further relist is likely to change the situation.
Just Chilling (
talk)
15:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep: A brief check of the books link indicates sources the nom. has not addressed in the nomination indicating lack of
WP:BEFORE and generic use of not notable. There is concern for a 10+ year article with many contributors it is placed through PROD->AfD with no attempt to tag issues first or notify previous contributors and seemingly little neutral attempt to improve it.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
09:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Could you be more specific? You've made some grand gestures in your comment, but have pointed to no actual references wth significant mentions from 3rd party reliable sources. This article is a clear delete.
Clnreee (
talk)
20:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)reply
There is a balance of my time and your time and everyone else's time. If you can't be arsed to checkout and tell me why the books on the link above not significant but wish to waste a lot of other peoples time doing it then I'm not sure I'm going to do it at this point.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
21:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Your continued attacks and negative assumptions are not appreciated. A full notability check was done, and this topic does not reach the wikipedia notability level, no matter what you may wish for. Again, you have provided no links to references to back up your claims. Your vote is a meaningless opinion not backed up by any evidence. This is a clear delete.
Clnreee (
talk)
05:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Failure demonstrate to follow
WP:BEFORE is not appreciated. Failure to consider alternatives such as tagging first is not appreciated. Failure to notify major contributors is not appreciated. That crap winds me up. isn't appreciated.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
08:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)reply
And still, no one has provided any references to support notability. This is a clear delete based on lack of notability.
Clnreee (
talk)
14:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)reply
I see you are now possibly scummering the Pavlor who has kindly pointed out two relevant sources nicely in support of
WP:NSOFT. Those add to Marcel Gagné's entry in Linux Journal which is sufficient and already present on the article. We have quite a number of other references that pass
WP:GNG; It is significant enough to have made
this and related security reports. the MySQL forums is significant. It is a product of the era perhaps the first decade of the millenium when it was notable and we must mindset to that time. If it was a paper product it would be gone some considerable time ago. But the article as it stands has problems ... (in fact I have never seen an article that has got away with a citations it has used for so long ... plus undeclared coi editing and it and needs cleanup, improvement and updating) ... which I am in the process of performing.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
20:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment Only independent source with broader coverage of the article subject I found so far is this book:
[1] (ca 15? pages from p. 623 are devoted to phorum). Other than that only passing mentions in RS, or coverage on sites with unclear reliability (pro-linux.de:
[2]).
Pavlor (
talk)
12:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)reply
thanks especially for the book, I've added the chapter 24 on Phorum case study (security) to further reading in the interim. With the book being dated 1999 that was at the early point in Phorum's life ... and I'd note the CVE's raised against Phorum later ...
[3].
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
18:41, 17 June 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 The sole charted single cited acknowledges him as "featured" vocalist, but per nomination, the credit belongs to others. Otherwise, sources are either promotional or insignificant, not RS. The only two reputable sources are USA Today and Billboard, but those articles are about his producer, who name checks this artist, but the coverage is not about him. Seems to be an up and comer with junk coverage, but until there are the requisite significant sources and legitimate stand alone achievement, probably
WP:TOOSOON. (Ooops. On second look, I see the single and major producer association was 7 to 10 years ago.. Nothing "too soon" about that.)
ShelbyMarion (
talk)
10:20, 20 June 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.
I don't think this article meets
WP:NCORP. While it boasts some high profile RS in the references section, the actual content of those articles is rather threadbare as far as coverage of the subject is concerned. I was able to find some more coverage online, but it seems similarly fleeting: routine announcements of new clothing lines (without any real analysis of said clothing), some name-checking in profiles of models. The only articles I came across with any substantial coverage have independence issues. signed, Rosguilltalk20:52, 26 June 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.
Does not meet
WP:NBIO or the now-discontinued
WP:PORNBIO. Sources used on the article are not RS, cursory google search leads to sources from
Metro, but mostly user-generated or blog content, not enough to meet GNG in my view.
Bkissin (
talk)
20:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep, She has lots of sources for notability including:
I disagree, the article needs more fleshing out (she was a major contributor at the peak of
TikTok's fame and is part of internet culture) but she does have notability as Adrian pointed out.
daylon124 (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added
21:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Clearly doesn't have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources and thus doesn't meet
WP:GNG. Also fails
WP:ENT. The article has sources from unreliable websites such as YouTube.
Masum Reza📞22:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Lack of
WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. All of the sources that
AdrianWikiEditor posted are about her Pornhub trolling, which falls under
WP:BLP1E which does not satisfy the requirements for
sustained coverage as they're all from the past few days. She may be a significant figure in Internet culture, but without good sources we can't write an encyclopedic article. Perhaps
WP:TOOSOON.
SpicyMilkBoy (
talk)
12:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)reply
CommentWP:BLP1E is often misunderstood. Three conditions must be met for it to apply. The second is that the person is a
low-profile individual, which doesn't mean what you might think. Wikipedia defines low-profile individual in this context as "someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention". Her trolling was seeking attention, not trying to avoid it. People who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. BLP1E doesn't apply in this case. --
Worldbruce (
talk)
16:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment Doesn't pass current wiki notability guidelines but that's a indictment of Wikipedia's outdated approach to keeping track of the new wave of entertainers (internet culture figures, just like actors in the early 20th century). Any other field and in any other time if any other person had close to four million dedicated followers, they'd be a entertainer of note. The fact that this article has close to 13k views in four days proves she holds interest among our readers, but there's no way to adequately cover her because there's just no sources, which is a indictment on the media too. There's no solution to this as the sources don't exist to adequately write a article which means we just have to accept being behind the times.
GuzzyG (
talk)
05:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment Hold that thought,
PewDiePie did a video with her in the thumbnail with close to 4.8 million views in less then 13 hours. News sources will start coming in once the video gets 10+ million views. We might get this article kept. Please just keep it a little longer.
AdrianWikiEditor (
talk)
06:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:GNG, is
WP:USELESS, among other things. Not worthy of an article for a long time. And just because someone trolls a bunch of people on the internet does not make it worthy for a Wikipedia article, for this is not the first nor the last instance in which this will occur.
Aviartm (
talk)
11:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)reply
'''Delete''' Fails
WP:GNG, is
WP:USELESS Please delete this. She only got famous for stealing content. She's sexualizing children and stole other girls nude photos and sold them as her own. She makes fun of dead animals — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
62.44.135.153 (
talk)
12:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Leaning Keep This person is a notable troll. The article needs some more flesh from sources. But the notability of the party has been established by non-trivial mentions in multiple articles per above.
Bahb the Illuminated (
talk)
22:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete There simply isn't enough coverage to create a biography about this person. Basic facts like her birthday, residence, etc. can't be verified. The creation of her pornhub account was covered by some strong sources but that's
WP:NOTNEWS.
LM2000 (
talk)
23:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment As it stands currently: 5 Delete, 2 Keeps with 1 Leaning. Rough consensus on deletion has been achieved it seems.
Aviartm (
talk)
14:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - she is officially an entrepreneur with selling her bath water... her absurd stunts should fully allow for a Wikipedia page in order for regular people to find out more about who she is, where she is from, and possibly how or why she does what she does / is able to attain such success. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2605:E000:1805:22AA:3044:6073:9D16:F804 (
talk)
19:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Adding another independent source, Vox's Polygon.
https://www.polygon.com/2019/7/3/20679112/belle-delphine-instagram-bath-water-troll -- discussing the merits of Belle's work as performance art. Whether you think it's nonsense trolling or not, the cultural relevance and notability of her oeuvre continues to expand. If we put aside our biases and go based on policies alone, I don't see why she wouldn't be on here. Though, perhaps
WP:TOOSOON, let's see how the article develops and if it turns into one worth keeping.
98.217.255.37 (
talk)
03:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete: Per
User:SpicyMilkBoy as a non-notable
BLP. I was not going to offer more than a comment but an SPA !vote brought up some popularity of stunts and selling bath water and another submitted that we should let a non-notable article ride it out because
someday the subject may be notable. That she appeared with
PewDiePie (one of the richest YouTubers) is posited that apparently somehow the subject inherits notability by riding coat tails but this does not
"cut the mustard".
Significant coverage in
reliable and
independent sources is not an indictment against Wikipedia for being "outdated". It is a daily affirmation that "if" something is notable it will have received coverage, according to
policies and guidelines.
Otr500 (
talk)
05:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete this rubbish. Not notable and no significant coverage. She has contributed nothing to humanity or South Africa other than being an attention seeker. I don't know who created this nonsense. There are many people around the world who have contributed so much to humanity yet cannot even get a Wikipedia page. Yet, we are inundated almost every day with new articles created by certain boys/men in the West about the women they fancy. What is this world coming to? Attention seeking does not equate to notability.
Tamsier (
talk)
06:41, 4 July 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.
Weak redirect to
Dog#As_pets. I expect that the author will defend this with his trademarked "I googled a book with this in the title" argument, but my scan of at least the applicable scientific literature
[4] would indicate that the term generally crops up as applied to more specific topics that alreday have articles (
Dog bite and
Rabies cover about 3/4 of those). If there is much to say on this particular topic that cannot be either treated in such places or at
dog, then fine, but I doubt it. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
19:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep The article was started as a quick response to a RfD, as explained above. It was started as a
WP:STUB because it was late at night. A stub is a valid way to get a topic started as per our
editing policy:
Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts.
The reference to a dictionary is quite mistaken. The topic here is not a particular word or phrase. Our policy
WP:NOTDICTIONARY explains that
One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written; another is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead users to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent.
So, what we have here is confusion generating disruption. The topic is clearly notable as several books have been cited about various aspects of the topic and there are many more sources out there. What is expected in this situation is collaboration in expanding the topic, as requested by the {{stub}} template, "You can help Wikipedia by expanding it."
To explain the matter further, let's page @
Uncle G: who wrote many of these policies and so best understands them.
Lolol you can't just say "please help" and therefore the existence of your vague nothingburger is justified...I wish this were an actual dictionary definition, that would be more useful than this since I don't know what it is. Does an urban dog have specific different characteristics from a
suburban dog or
rural dog? If so then you need to provide that basis for people to work off of, not your eleven-word "article", which could have also been a
WP:DRAFT in response to the RFD; you could have also requested collaboration on a talk page first. Someone writing a book helping urban dog owners keep a pet in an apartment does not distinguish an "urban dog" as a notable unique concept, and the other sources are quite clearly about stray/
free-ranging dogs or
street dogs, and you made no effort to clarify what makes this warrant a separate article rather than just taking the names of the first hits in your Google Books search.
Reywas92Talk04:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete It's unclear why urban dogs in general would be a separate topic from
pet dogs and
street dogs. Although several sources have been provided, they seem to be the result of googling "urban dog" and don't point to a single cohesive topic. –
dlthewave☎03:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Although several sources have been provided, they seem to be the result of googling "urban dog" and don't point to a single cohesive topic.- yes, that's the article creator's usual MO at AfD.
ReykYO!08:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete- "An urban dog is a dog in a town or city". Well, duh. This is an exercise in stating the obvious but nothing useful. Are these stray dogs? Pets of people living in towns? Guide dogs for vision impaired inner city workers? No idea. The article doesn't say and was never intended to convey anything useful. It's just the result of finding a handful of books with the word "urban" and/or "dog" in the title, not looking at them, and then citing them in an 11 word microstub.
ReykYO!08:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Even if this were actually a thing, it would still fail on the grounds of being an un-nottable
WP:NEOLOGISM. But this is not a thing, this is the result of googling two words and noting that they are sometimes used in conjunction with one another. None of these sources indicate why this is a concept that is separate, and needs a split article, from any of the other topics already noted in some of the responses above.
Rorshacma (
talk)
15:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. I also questioned the notability and validity of this term as a separate subject when I noticed the article was created via the discussion that
Tavix linked. (I am the nominator of that discussion.) Seems I'm not alone in this concern.
Steel1943 (
talk)
17:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
A7 only applies to articles "about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization,
web content, or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of
educational institutions." This topic therefore doesn't qualify. See also
WP:WIHS#A7.
Andrew D. (
talk)
18:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Ha ha, arguing over guideline smallprint won't convince anyone to save this article. What's your next article Andrew?
Dead horse? That's been a disambiguation page far too long with no primary topic to take the title.
SpinningSpark13:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)reply
I already started
dead cat and have written on other similar titles like
urban chicken. The topic here would be comparatively easy as there are several books on the subject. But we seem to have several
hounds here and I have plenty of other things to do. "Every dog has its day".
Andrew D. (
talk)
14:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Spotte 2012, p. 228 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSpotte2012 (
help) tells me outright that "urban dogs are characterized by six factors". Dr Spotte cites
Ortolani, Vernooij & Coppinger 2009 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFOrtolaniVernooijCoppinger2009 (
help) and
Daniels 1983 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDaniels1983 (
help) for that. The book, from reading even just the context on the rest of the page, is discussing
street dogs by this name, and contrasting them with "
rural free-ranging dogs". Ortolani et al. actually say
village dogs. Daniels says
free-ranging urban dogs.
So there is the actual science for you, from doing a little more than putting two words together and actually reading what the searches turned up.
Spotte, Stephen (2012). "Socialization". Societies of Wolves and Free-ranging Dogs. Cambridge University Press.
ISBN9781107015197.
Ortolani, Alessia; Vernooij, Hans; Coppinger, Raymond (July 2009). "Ethiopian village dogs: Behavioural responses to a stranger's approach". Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 119 (3–4): 210–218.
doi:
10.1016/j.applanim.2009.03.011.
Daniels, Thomas J. (July 1983). "The social organization of free-ranging urban dogs. I. Non-estrous social behavior". Applied Animal Ethology. 10 (4): 341–363.
doi:
10.1016/0304-3762(83)90184-0.
Comment I believe the article as currently written is eligible for A3 deletion. If some of the references have any useful content, adding it to the article should make this an easy keep. If not, this should be deleted (or turned into a DAB page, if there is a need to have something at this name).
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
20:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete, I can't see much published that discusses "urban dogs" as a concept in itself - Feral dogs, pet dogs, stray dogs, and working dogs are clearly discussed in other articles, but I just can't see a significant number of sources that are going to discuss the vague crossover of pet dogs, street dogs and working dogs that happen to live in cities. This is not a useful article topic without that specific coverage. It's just a vague dictionary definition restatement of a concept - while that concept clearly exists, it does not exist in a form that a useful encyclopedia article could be written about. ~
mazcatalk12:29, 3 July 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.
None of the acts he is with outside of
Enter Shikari are notable enough to pass GNG. Thus, he is only notable for Enter Shikari and notability for one group does not constitute an article.
Not to mention it's in poor condition anyway. I know that's not a reason to delete, but it doesn't do us any good to keep it if it can't be verified. I'll take a look at those later if nobody beats me to it, but I suspect that the sources for those aren't really that high grade.
Redirect to
Enter Shikari. This article tries to use his DJ work and clothing line as reasons for a separate article, but those endeavors are not notable nor have they received any
reliable coverage in their own right. Therefore everything notable about the guy is already described at the Enter Shikari article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)19:26, 29 June 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.
Non
notable writer/producer/actor. The likes of Drunk Cokewhore don't cut it for NACTOR. Acting as Andy Matheson in Outer Space Astronauts may be considered a good one but it's only one. "Producer" is co and associate and lacks coverage. Writer is the more significant but she is largely a staff writer who does an occasional episode. Nothing of that much note. The award nom claimed is not a major award and is not for her individualy, it's for the show where she was a staff writer. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is
bombarded with a lot of sources but not multiple that are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of her.
duffbeerforme (
talk)
04:15, 19 June 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.
BLP supported by 0 independent reliable sources. The citations are a mix of blogs, publications from the subject's own publishing operation, and a student newspaper. I found nothing to support notability in my
WP:BEFORE search. And then there's this: on the Talk page, the original creator of the page says it should be deleted because they have discovered "much of it's content is either unverifiable or demonstrably untrue". Unfortunately, by the time this was posted, it was too late for a
G7 and the editor did not pursue the matter further.
RL0919 (
talk)
17:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Although I did find (Revolving feast of plays offered in dinner theater,
Northwest Florida Daily News; Fort Walton Beach, Fla. [Fort Walton Beach, Fla]24 June 1994: E.5.), which outlines his career as a teacher of theatre arts and director of local playhouses, it is his hometown paper and I cannot find enough non-local,
WP:SIGCOV to support
WP:CREATIVE. (feel free to ping me to reconsider if you manage to source it).
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
00:09, 27 June 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 article is on a hotel that never actually existed. It was planned, but never constructed. The only source that talks about it, which is what the entirety of the information on the article comes from, is a single blurb from the New York Times which is nothing more than an announcement of the project, and is not enough to pass the
WP:GNG. Every other source being used in the article are about other things that were named after
Hendrik Hudson and have nothing to do with this building at all. Searching for more sources on this non-existent hotel brings up nothing but mentions of a different, completely unrelated hotel that bore the same name. And while the argument could be made that this article could be re-purposed to be about that one instead, there is nothing I can find to indicate any notability for that location either.
Rorshacma (
talk)
17:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Withdrawn by nominator - Uncle G has demonstrated below that this case isn't as clear cut as I initially believed, so I am withdrawing this nomination.
Rorshacma (
talk)
15:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Alpern, Andrew (1992). "The Hendrik Hudson at 380 Riverside Drive". Luxury Apartment Houses of Manhattan: An Illustrated History. Dover Architecture Series. Courier Corporation. pp. 77–83.
ISBN9780486273709.
Comment The different hotel I was referring to in my nomination was actually not the one your links are referring to, but to the one in Troy, New York that bears the same name. I actually did not find the links you provided, which seem to indicate that the plans for the 18 floor hotel were scrapped to instead build an 8 story apartment complex with the same name. At this point, I'm leaning towards Withdrawing my nomination, and substantially rewriting, expanding, and renaming (as the final building was apparently never referred to as a "hotel" in its name) this article to cover the actual final building, based on your sources. But I will leave this AFD open for a bit longer, to see if any other editors have any comments on its notability. Nice work finding this information, by the way. I had only been searching for information regarding the proposed hotel without success, and had not considered that the proposal had transformed so radically to the final building.
Rorshacma (
talk)
00:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
I started with the ignorant question Is there actually a building on Riverside Drive called the Hendrik Hudson? ☺
Personally, I think that Salwen has made a somewhat tenuous connection, and were I rewriting this I would include the 1897 plan merely to show that Johnson and Kahn were not the first to have such an idea. Once you get to
Alpern 1992 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFAlpern1992 (
help) you will realize how much of a potential article there is here anyway. The 1907 pictures in the MCNY collection indicated by Alpern I would expect to be public domain now, and would be worth chasing up by a Wikipedia writer with access, for starters.
See
Penrhiw Priory (
AfD discussion) for another building with history that needs attention and that Wikipedia had us believe was (just) a hotel, by the way.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There is no inherent notability for government agencies and, as we established in
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solicitor General of Washington, some obscure national and sub-national agencies are not necessarily sufficiently
WP:N for WP. This article on a Ghanaian regulatory board has only two sources, one of which is non-RS, the other of which is non-
WP:INDEPENDENT. A BEFORE on JSTOR, newspapers.com, and Google Books finds no references. A BEFORE on Google News finds limited, fleeting, and purely incidental references that don't cover the organization itself, merely mentioning "XYZ was approved by the Energy Commissions" and so forth. (Note that there is a different and separate Ghanian body called the Atomic Energy Commission.)
Chetsford (
talk)
17:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment A GF attempt to add additional sources underscores my last comment, that the handful of additional references available on BEFORE are not about the organization itself, they merely mention it. For example, this reference
[5], etc. While a laudable effort, this does not represent
WP:SIGCOV as intended by our guidelines. While the sources prove the Ghanian Energy Commission exists, mere proof of existence is not proof of notability.
Chetsford (
talk)
17:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep The agency is a major energy regulator in Ghana, covering electricity, clean energy and sustainable development. The commission is also has key regulatory oversight of the following national agencies so it cannot be considered an obscure parastatal:
While this may be true, an organization's real-life importance is not synonymous with its WP notability. Often the two intersect, meaning major organizations tend to generate the type of
WP:SIGCOV needed to achieve
WP:N. However, WP ultimately evaluates organizations based on factors unrelated to its statutory characterization.
Chetsford (
talk)
17:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep In the first place,the article was nominated for speedy deletion because of potential copyright infringement as per the initial deletion request explanation. This has been duly corrected.
Ataavi (
talk)
17:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Major regulatory body in Ghana, managing all forms of energy distribution and development in the country. It is comparable to
Ontario Power Generation. It would benefit from expansion, and might want to look to the OPG article as a template.
Risker (
talk)
06:22, 2 July 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: Appears to be coverage of her, including conspiracy theories involving her father's death (frm Google translate of the sources). Polish Wikipedia has article with more references>
PamD08:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment, this should never have come to afd as there is an obvious merge/redirect target of her father, that should have been discussed on the talkpage, but that is by the by as she meets
WP:GNG with the sources contained in the article and the others at
the Polish WP article.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
23:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep. She's out of BIO1E since she's also covered in the context of aiding her father (and not just in the context of the crash and the missing body). While there are a great deal of sources here out there covering her, many of them are brief and coverage is primarily in the context of assisting her father during the war. I'm leaning keep due to the number of references and due to some of them - e.g.
this one being in depth.
Icewhiz (
talk)
08:55, 1 July 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. Doesn't meet
WP:NBAND yet. The radio coverage cited is just internet radio, not a major national network. No significant RS coverage of their album release. –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱14:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Having talked with Discospinster
talk We will upload spanish references so the wiki is complete. Please do not delete or return to draft. Thanks and have a nice day. User: Freeinformationfront
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No indication of notability for this recently-released album. Some user-submitted reviews and blogs but no significant discussion by major review sites either in English or Spanish. ...discospinstertalk13:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
I didn't do the merge - why did some one type my username in to make it look as I was typing one of the above comments?
Vorbee (
talk) 20:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the history of this page, it looks as if my name was copied by Freeinformationfront - a Wikipedian whose username is in red letters, so does not have a userpage.
Vorbee (
talk)
20:44, 27 June 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.
Wikipedia is not a directory that every 26 year old have an article. The concern is: there is seem not many news coverage about him, to pass
WP:GNG, the wikipedia guideline for inclusion criteria.
Matthew hk (
talk)
23:02, 26 June 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 result was redirect to
Gadsden County, Florida. Well, it seems like nobody here has found any substantial sourcing for the topic that could meet
WP:GNG and it's not clear that
WP:NGEO would apply either. With respect to The Grid's argument, if some evidence of this place's notability comes up we could revisit the close.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
07:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm proposing a deletion and redirect to
Gadsden County, Florida as I can't find any reliable sources that talk about this community and it doesn't appear to be notable as a standalone article. I boldly redirected but the creator has objected.
tl;dr fails
WP:NGEO.
Praxidicae (
talk)
11:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - No mention of this place on GNIS. The article links to a map, but there's no mention of this place on any of the maps. The links in the article are either dead, or don't mention this place. I tried to speedy delete this article thinking it was a hoax.
Magnolia677 (
talk)
11:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge and/or Rewrite - The description of this community seems to place it north of both Quincy and Gretna, which means the geotag for it is wrong. The dead links in the article are proof that the internet is not forever, but we can always try to archive them. -------
User:DanTD (
talk)
12:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
I looked in hard sources too (books, newspapers) and found very little about this St. John Florida, it's just a small community, basically a community association.
Praxidicae (
talk)
12:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - Slightly, off topic, I looked at some maps of Gadsden County, Florida, and I found a lot of communities that were excluded from the navbox. ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
14:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - This is an interesting publication I found that was on the county's website through the Internet Archive:
[6] - page 6 has a passing mention of the city of St. John and this pertains to US 90. Strangely the description: Mt. Pleasant borders the cities of Gretna and St. John, Florida, as well as Chattahoochee. Looking at
Mount Pleasant, Florida, the second sentence in the lede paragraph was added by an IP user in 2010 (well, it might be the account here as well looking at the edit history). The guide looks to be something official by the county
here. Maybe it's a former boom town given this is the county where people bought Coca Cola shares when they were cheap (and before its popularity). I'm assuming good faith editing and there has to be something there. –
The Grid (
talk)
21:21, 27 June 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
WP:PROMOTIONAL article by a pseudo-SPA on an app developer lacks any RS except a single, questionable reference to androidauthority.com. A BEFORE fails to find anything that could be added.
Chetsford (
talk)
08:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
This is not a promotional. As you can clearly see, I just discussed this software company's contribution to the development of mobile apps in the last decade. The fact that I could only find a few non-promotional references doesn't mean that it is invalid. Why do I think this is worth being on Wikipedia? It's for the same reasons Google is here. It's not my place to promote a business on Wikipedia. If there is something you think looks promotional in my article, kindly point it out and I'll happily update my work. Please refrain from speculating and base your comments on factual information rather than assumptions. Thanks! :) --
Mwengengona (
talk)
22:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Please refrain from speculating and base your comments on factual information Hmmm. Okay. The facts are you made exactly the minimum number of minor edits (10) to achieve autoconfirmed status and then created an article on a company sourced almost entirely to the company's own website, then stopped editing on WP entirely until said article was nominated for deletion at which point you reappeared.
WP:DUCK applies.
Chetsford (
talk)
23:55, 26 June 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 appears to be a substantially similar version of an article previously deleted by unanimity at AfD (see original nom by
User:Randykitty of
Avenue Journal (magazine) (
AfD discussion)), with the exception that it is now operating under a different name. Its only reference is a Worldcat listing and a BEFORE finds no further references.
Chetsford (
talk)
08:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
It is very similar. The older article of course did not have the claim about a relaunch that is, coincidentally, a few days from now.
Uncle G (
talk)
23:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete As not passing GNG and otherwise lacking notability. I do admire that they link to a WorldCat entries which shows no libraries hold the publication. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
01:59, 3 July 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 article gives undue attention to an economic theory that is not well-known and is not publicly defined. After researching the topic, the only references or explanations I could find were from lobbying and policy interest groups. There is no rigorous definition of the curve, its underlying economic assumptions, or an empirical evidence of its merits. Its publication on wikipedia therefore cannot go further than baselessly popularizing the concept and is therefore against WP:NOTESSAY
Lordstevenbalogh (
talk)
22:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Well there's
Brimelow 1993 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBrimelow1993 (
help), which is what a lot of other sources cite. What Rahn and Fox studied in the 1990s was the relationship between government spending and economic growth, which you will find more than oddball WWW sites talking about. Of course, an article on that would also include the
Armey curve under the umbrella of the
BARS curve (named after
Barro,
Armey,
Rahn+Fox, and
Scully).
So … where did you actually look when you researched this?
Altunca, Faruk; Aydınb, Celil (2013-10-10). "The Relationship between Optimal Size of Government and Economic Growth: Empirical Evidence from Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria". Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 92: 66–75.
doi:
10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.639.
Miller, J. Corey. "Using the Armey Curve to Measure the Size of Government" (Document). University Research Center, Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning. {{
cite document}}: Unknown parameter |url= ignored (
help)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
I relisted this discussion early. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Masum Reza📞06:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. A quick look at gbooks (I can't be bothered to list any of them, but I wonder if the nom even looked) shows that this is discussed. Whether or not the curve is ill-defined and the claims baseless is entirely irrelevant to whether we should have an article (but if that can be cited, it should most definitely be included in the page). Claiming that such a short stub is an essay is also hard to swallow, so I'm seeing no basis for deletion from either perspective.
SpinningSpark22:51, 26 June 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 Wrong venue. I'm closing this as an inappropriate nomination. You can achieve what you want by just redirecting the page. There really is no valid reason for deleting the history of the page.
SpinningSpark18:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Operation Stranglehold is a stub cited to a self-published source. The operation is better covered in
Operation Raindance, which describes Stranglehold's origin as a followup to Raindance. With a more complete description with reliable cites, Raindance renders Stranglehold unnecessary. As the original author of both articles, I believe I have a right to request this as a speedy deletion.
Georgejdorner (
talk)
04:50, 26 June 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, if verified - Potentially does pass NFOOTY - 21apps(*) for Yadanarbon in 2013 in the
Myanmar National League, which is listed a
WP:FPL. *needs verifying of course, but we're talking about Burmese language sources which can be notoriously difficult to find for non-speakers.
World Football supports the fact he joined Yadanarbon.
R96Skinner (
talk)
11:10, 26 June 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.
Weak keep on the basis that
sources like this do exist and there are probably more hidden behind web.archive and the like. I'm rather persuaded by a lot of the keep arguments in the previous afd while also having to acknowledge that I can't find anything beyond what the original author linked in that first afd.
Nole(
chat·
edits)00:55, 25 June 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 article was created by
User:Hongwei0921, who is almost certainly the subject of this article. Almost all of the Google search results are for different people by the same name. Furthermore, this article was nominated for speedy deletion twice; its creator removed the tags. If the subject is indeed notable, then it would be best if we
started over. ―
SusmuffinTalk23:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep this is a pretty clear keep as, for starters, he is in multiple museum collections. For example the
Art Institute of Chicago has some of his work. When I see collection(s), I generally figure they are notable as it is hard to get into collections. Also, we have a policy to the same effect (
WP:ARTIST 4)d). After the collections, I look around for sources. I see a profile interview in Scultpure magazine. So he meets WP:ARTIST. The fact that he might have edited the article himself can be corrected through the use of the delete key on any non-encylopedic text.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
07:09, 27 June 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.
Oppose Passes the GNG (even before his disapperance and death). ENT doesn't override GNG, and NYOUTUBE is an essay. --
Masem (
t)
22:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Doesn't matter for the GNG. As it says for BLP, "A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.", so requiring ENT to be met is not appropriate. --
Masem (
t)
23:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose I strongly oppose this as I created the page and there are MANY notable and good references so I don't even know why this is a discussion. The page is trending on Wikipedia and should be kept up.
AceAlen📞23:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
The essay
WP:NYOUTUBE says However, in practice, editors involved in deletion debates consider that a YouTuber needs to meet *both* WP:GNG *and* WP:ENT. That's why I've nominated it.
Masum Reza📞23:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - clearly passes
WP:GNG.
WP:ENT does not override the former as it is under the "Additonal criteria" section of the Notability policy. Meeting it only makes it more likely to be notable, but it does not guarantee it and the reverse also holds true; not meeting the additional criteria does not mean the subject in question is not notable. It meets the basic criteria as multiple reliable sources have covered on his mental episodes months prior. Not to mention the already huge coverage his death is receiving. Even if
WP:ENT did override
WP:GNG, the subject in the article still meets criteria n°2 and possibly n°3. --
letcreate123 (
talk)
23:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose this article has good references, is trending, and the person in question is a very popular figure. I don't see anything wrong with the article at all. Seems like this deletion proposal is racially motivated, if you ask me. 23:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.194.42.34 (
talk)
Can we not with the racism accusations? Even if the nomination may be poorly justified (which I agree, mind you), a proper debate is taking place and jumping to the conclusion that this AfD nomination is "racially motivated" is not the way to respond and it comes across as ad hominem. --
letcreate123 (
talk)
23:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep the article can stay, it has plenty of reliable citations for it to stay up. Subscriber count shouldn't determine weather an article should stay.
Michael14375 (
talk)
00:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep I should believe this article shouldn't be deleted as readers, especially most of his followers on Youtube, can read his bibliography and I should consider it staying here in the article space.
VictorTorres2002 (
talk)
00:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep For readers of Wikipedia, like myself, there are many other YouTubers that have articles here for viewers and fans. At the time of his death, fans across social media paid numerous tributes and became trending. As he had a large fan base, deleting this is considered as disrespectful by not keeping his legacy alive.
Zacharyalejandro (
talk)
01:17, 27 June 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. After two relists there is no consensus and with no comments since the 16 June I don't think that a further relist is likely to change the situation.
Just Chilling (
talk)
15:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep: A brief check of the books link indicates sources the nom. has not addressed in the nomination indicating lack of
WP:BEFORE and generic use of not notable. There is concern for a 10+ year article with many contributors it is placed through PROD->AfD with no attempt to tag issues first or notify previous contributors and seemingly little neutral attempt to improve it.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
09:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Could you be more specific? You've made some grand gestures in your comment, but have pointed to no actual references wth significant mentions from 3rd party reliable sources. This article is a clear delete.
Clnreee (
talk)
20:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)reply
There is a balance of my time and your time and everyone else's time. If you can't be arsed to checkout and tell me why the books on the link above not significant but wish to waste a lot of other peoples time doing it then I'm not sure I'm going to do it at this point.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
21:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Your continued attacks and negative assumptions are not appreciated. A full notability check was done, and this topic does not reach the wikipedia notability level, no matter what you may wish for. Again, you have provided no links to references to back up your claims. Your vote is a meaningless opinion not backed up by any evidence. This is a clear delete.
Clnreee (
talk)
05:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Failure demonstrate to follow
WP:BEFORE is not appreciated. Failure to consider alternatives such as tagging first is not appreciated. Failure to notify major contributors is not appreciated. That crap winds me up. isn't appreciated.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
08:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)reply
And still, no one has provided any references to support notability. This is a clear delete based on lack of notability.
Clnreee (
talk)
14:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)reply
I see you are now possibly scummering the Pavlor who has kindly pointed out two relevant sources nicely in support of
WP:NSOFT. Those add to Marcel Gagné's entry in Linux Journal which is sufficient and already present on the article. We have quite a number of other references that pass
WP:GNG; It is significant enough to have made
this and related security reports. the MySQL forums is significant. It is a product of the era perhaps the first decade of the millenium when it was notable and we must mindset to that time. If it was a paper product it would be gone some considerable time ago. But the article as it stands has problems ... (in fact I have never seen an article that has got away with a citations it has used for so long ... plus undeclared coi editing and it and needs cleanup, improvement and updating) ... which I am in the process of performing.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
20:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment Only independent source with broader coverage of the article subject I found so far is this book:
[1] (ca 15? pages from p. 623 are devoted to phorum). Other than that only passing mentions in RS, or coverage on sites with unclear reliability (pro-linux.de:
[2]).
Pavlor (
talk)
12:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)reply
thanks especially for the book, I've added the chapter 24 on Phorum case study (security) to further reading in the interim. With the book being dated 1999 that was at the early point in Phorum's life ... and I'd note the CVE's raised against Phorum later ...
[3].
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
18:41, 17 June 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 The sole charted single cited acknowledges him as "featured" vocalist, but per nomination, the credit belongs to others. Otherwise, sources are either promotional or insignificant, not RS. The only two reputable sources are USA Today and Billboard, but those articles are about his producer, who name checks this artist, but the coverage is not about him. Seems to be an up and comer with junk coverage, but until there are the requisite significant sources and legitimate stand alone achievement, probably
WP:TOOSOON. (Ooops. On second look, I see the single and major producer association was 7 to 10 years ago.. Nothing "too soon" about that.)
ShelbyMarion (
talk)
10:20, 20 June 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.
I don't think this article meets
WP:NCORP. While it boasts some high profile RS in the references section, the actual content of those articles is rather threadbare as far as coverage of the subject is concerned. I was able to find some more coverage online, but it seems similarly fleeting: routine announcements of new clothing lines (without any real analysis of said clothing), some name-checking in profiles of models. The only articles I came across with any substantial coverage have independence issues. signed, Rosguilltalk20:52, 26 June 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.
Does not meet
WP:NBIO or the now-discontinued
WP:PORNBIO. Sources used on the article are not RS, cursory google search leads to sources from
Metro, but mostly user-generated or blog content, not enough to meet GNG in my view.
Bkissin (
talk)
20:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep, She has lots of sources for notability including:
I disagree, the article needs more fleshing out (she was a major contributor at the peak of
TikTok's fame and is part of internet culture) but she does have notability as Adrian pointed out.
daylon124 (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added
21:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Clearly doesn't have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources and thus doesn't meet
WP:GNG. Also fails
WP:ENT. The article has sources from unreliable websites such as YouTube.
Masum Reza📞22:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Lack of
WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. All of the sources that
AdrianWikiEditor posted are about her Pornhub trolling, which falls under
WP:BLP1E which does not satisfy the requirements for
sustained coverage as they're all from the past few days. She may be a significant figure in Internet culture, but without good sources we can't write an encyclopedic article. Perhaps
WP:TOOSOON.
SpicyMilkBoy (
talk)
12:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)reply
CommentWP:BLP1E is often misunderstood. Three conditions must be met for it to apply. The second is that the person is a
low-profile individual, which doesn't mean what you might think. Wikipedia defines low-profile individual in this context as "someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention". Her trolling was seeking attention, not trying to avoid it. People who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. BLP1E doesn't apply in this case. --
Worldbruce (
talk)
16:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment Doesn't pass current wiki notability guidelines but that's a indictment of Wikipedia's outdated approach to keeping track of the new wave of entertainers (internet culture figures, just like actors in the early 20th century). Any other field and in any other time if any other person had close to four million dedicated followers, they'd be a entertainer of note. The fact that this article has close to 13k views in four days proves she holds interest among our readers, but there's no way to adequately cover her because there's just no sources, which is a indictment on the media too. There's no solution to this as the sources don't exist to adequately write a article which means we just have to accept being behind the times.
GuzzyG (
talk)
05:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment Hold that thought,
PewDiePie did a video with her in the thumbnail with close to 4.8 million views in less then 13 hours. News sources will start coming in once the video gets 10+ million views. We might get this article kept. Please just keep it a little longer.
AdrianWikiEditor (
talk)
06:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:GNG, is
WP:USELESS, among other things. Not worthy of an article for a long time. And just because someone trolls a bunch of people on the internet does not make it worthy for a Wikipedia article, for this is not the first nor the last instance in which this will occur.
Aviartm (
talk)
11:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)reply
'''Delete''' Fails
WP:GNG, is
WP:USELESS Please delete this. She only got famous for stealing content. She's sexualizing children and stole other girls nude photos and sold them as her own. She makes fun of dead animals — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
62.44.135.153 (
talk)
12:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Leaning Keep This person is a notable troll. The article needs some more flesh from sources. But the notability of the party has been established by non-trivial mentions in multiple articles per above.
Bahb the Illuminated (
talk)
22:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete There simply isn't enough coverage to create a biography about this person. Basic facts like her birthday, residence, etc. can't be verified. The creation of her pornhub account was covered by some strong sources but that's
WP:NOTNEWS.
LM2000 (
talk)
23:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment As it stands currently: 5 Delete, 2 Keeps with 1 Leaning. Rough consensus on deletion has been achieved it seems.
Aviartm (
talk)
14:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - she is officially an entrepreneur with selling her bath water... her absurd stunts should fully allow for a Wikipedia page in order for regular people to find out more about who she is, where she is from, and possibly how or why she does what she does / is able to attain such success. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2605:E000:1805:22AA:3044:6073:9D16:F804 (
talk)
19:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Adding another independent source, Vox's Polygon.
https://www.polygon.com/2019/7/3/20679112/belle-delphine-instagram-bath-water-troll -- discussing the merits of Belle's work as performance art. Whether you think it's nonsense trolling or not, the cultural relevance and notability of her oeuvre continues to expand. If we put aside our biases and go based on policies alone, I don't see why she wouldn't be on here. Though, perhaps
WP:TOOSOON, let's see how the article develops and if it turns into one worth keeping.
98.217.255.37 (
talk)
03:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete: Per
User:SpicyMilkBoy as a non-notable
BLP. I was not going to offer more than a comment but an SPA !vote brought up some popularity of stunts and selling bath water and another submitted that we should let a non-notable article ride it out because
someday the subject may be notable. That she appeared with
PewDiePie (one of the richest YouTubers) is posited that apparently somehow the subject inherits notability by riding coat tails but this does not
"cut the mustard".
Significant coverage in
reliable and
independent sources is not an indictment against Wikipedia for being "outdated". It is a daily affirmation that "if" something is notable it will have received coverage, according to
policies and guidelines.
Otr500 (
talk)
05:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete this rubbish. Not notable and no significant coverage. She has contributed nothing to humanity or South Africa other than being an attention seeker. I don't know who created this nonsense. There are many people around the world who have contributed so much to humanity yet cannot even get a Wikipedia page. Yet, we are inundated almost every day with new articles created by certain boys/men in the West about the women they fancy. What is this world coming to? Attention seeking does not equate to notability.
Tamsier (
talk)
06:41, 4 July 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.
Weak redirect to
Dog#As_pets. I expect that the author will defend this with his trademarked "I googled a book with this in the title" argument, but my scan of at least the applicable scientific literature
[4] would indicate that the term generally crops up as applied to more specific topics that alreday have articles (
Dog bite and
Rabies cover about 3/4 of those). If there is much to say on this particular topic that cannot be either treated in such places or at
dog, then fine, but I doubt it. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
19:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep The article was started as a quick response to a RfD, as explained above. It was started as a
WP:STUB because it was late at night. A stub is a valid way to get a topic started as per our
editing policy:
Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts.
The reference to a dictionary is quite mistaken. The topic here is not a particular word or phrase. Our policy
WP:NOTDICTIONARY explains that
One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written; another is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead users to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent.
So, what we have here is confusion generating disruption. The topic is clearly notable as several books have been cited about various aspects of the topic and there are many more sources out there. What is expected in this situation is collaboration in expanding the topic, as requested by the {{stub}} template, "You can help Wikipedia by expanding it."
To explain the matter further, let's page @
Uncle G: who wrote many of these policies and so best understands them.
Lolol you can't just say "please help" and therefore the existence of your vague nothingburger is justified...I wish this were an actual dictionary definition, that would be more useful than this since I don't know what it is. Does an urban dog have specific different characteristics from a
suburban dog or
rural dog? If so then you need to provide that basis for people to work off of, not your eleven-word "article", which could have also been a
WP:DRAFT in response to the RFD; you could have also requested collaboration on a talk page first. Someone writing a book helping urban dog owners keep a pet in an apartment does not distinguish an "urban dog" as a notable unique concept, and the other sources are quite clearly about stray/
free-ranging dogs or
street dogs, and you made no effort to clarify what makes this warrant a separate article rather than just taking the names of the first hits in your Google Books search.
Reywas92Talk04:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete It's unclear why urban dogs in general would be a separate topic from
pet dogs and
street dogs. Although several sources have been provided, they seem to be the result of googling "urban dog" and don't point to a single cohesive topic. –
dlthewave☎03:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Although several sources have been provided, they seem to be the result of googling "urban dog" and don't point to a single cohesive topic.- yes, that's the article creator's usual MO at AfD.
ReykYO!08:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete- "An urban dog is a dog in a town or city". Well, duh. This is an exercise in stating the obvious but nothing useful. Are these stray dogs? Pets of people living in towns? Guide dogs for vision impaired inner city workers? No idea. The article doesn't say and was never intended to convey anything useful. It's just the result of finding a handful of books with the word "urban" and/or "dog" in the title, not looking at them, and then citing them in an 11 word microstub.
ReykYO!08:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Even if this were actually a thing, it would still fail on the grounds of being an un-nottable
WP:NEOLOGISM. But this is not a thing, this is the result of googling two words and noting that they are sometimes used in conjunction with one another. None of these sources indicate why this is a concept that is separate, and needs a split article, from any of the other topics already noted in some of the responses above.
Rorshacma (
talk)
15:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. I also questioned the notability and validity of this term as a separate subject when I noticed the article was created via the discussion that
Tavix linked. (I am the nominator of that discussion.) Seems I'm not alone in this concern.
Steel1943 (
talk)
17:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
A7 only applies to articles "about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization,
web content, or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of
educational institutions." This topic therefore doesn't qualify. See also
WP:WIHS#A7.
Andrew D. (
talk)
18:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Ha ha, arguing over guideline smallprint won't convince anyone to save this article. What's your next article Andrew?
Dead horse? That's been a disambiguation page far too long with no primary topic to take the title.
SpinningSpark13:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)reply
I already started
dead cat and have written on other similar titles like
urban chicken. The topic here would be comparatively easy as there are several books on the subject. But we seem to have several
hounds here and I have plenty of other things to do. "Every dog has its day".
Andrew D. (
talk)
14:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Spotte 2012, p. 228 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSpotte2012 (
help) tells me outright that "urban dogs are characterized by six factors". Dr Spotte cites
Ortolani, Vernooij & Coppinger 2009 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFOrtolaniVernooijCoppinger2009 (
help) and
Daniels 1983 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDaniels1983 (
help) for that. The book, from reading even just the context on the rest of the page, is discussing
street dogs by this name, and contrasting them with "
rural free-ranging dogs". Ortolani et al. actually say
village dogs. Daniels says
free-ranging urban dogs.
So there is the actual science for you, from doing a little more than putting two words together and actually reading what the searches turned up.
Spotte, Stephen (2012). "Socialization". Societies of Wolves and Free-ranging Dogs. Cambridge University Press.
ISBN9781107015197.
Ortolani, Alessia; Vernooij, Hans; Coppinger, Raymond (July 2009). "Ethiopian village dogs: Behavioural responses to a stranger's approach". Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 119 (3–4): 210–218.
doi:
10.1016/j.applanim.2009.03.011.
Daniels, Thomas J. (July 1983). "The social organization of free-ranging urban dogs. I. Non-estrous social behavior". Applied Animal Ethology. 10 (4): 341–363.
doi:
10.1016/0304-3762(83)90184-0.
Comment I believe the article as currently written is eligible for A3 deletion. If some of the references have any useful content, adding it to the article should make this an easy keep. If not, this should be deleted (or turned into a DAB page, if there is a need to have something at this name).
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
20:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete, I can't see much published that discusses "urban dogs" as a concept in itself - Feral dogs, pet dogs, stray dogs, and working dogs are clearly discussed in other articles, but I just can't see a significant number of sources that are going to discuss the vague crossover of pet dogs, street dogs and working dogs that happen to live in cities. This is not a useful article topic without that specific coverage. It's just a vague dictionary definition restatement of a concept - while that concept clearly exists, it does not exist in a form that a useful encyclopedia article could be written about. ~
mazcatalk12:29, 3 July 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.
None of the acts he is with outside of
Enter Shikari are notable enough to pass GNG. Thus, he is only notable for Enter Shikari and notability for one group does not constitute an article.
Not to mention it's in poor condition anyway. I know that's not a reason to delete, but it doesn't do us any good to keep it if it can't be verified. I'll take a look at those later if nobody beats me to it, but I suspect that the sources for those aren't really that high grade.
Redirect to
Enter Shikari. This article tries to use his DJ work and clothing line as reasons for a separate article, but those endeavors are not notable nor have they received any
reliable coverage in their own right. Therefore everything notable about the guy is already described at the Enter Shikari article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)19:26, 29 June 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.
Non
notable writer/producer/actor. The likes of Drunk Cokewhore don't cut it for NACTOR. Acting as Andy Matheson in Outer Space Astronauts may be considered a good one but it's only one. "Producer" is co and associate and lacks coverage. Writer is the more significant but she is largely a staff writer who does an occasional episode. Nothing of that much note. The award nom claimed is not a major award and is not for her individualy, it's for the show where she was a staff writer. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is
bombarded with a lot of sources but not multiple that are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of her.
duffbeerforme (
talk)
04:15, 19 June 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.
BLP supported by 0 independent reliable sources. The citations are a mix of blogs, publications from the subject's own publishing operation, and a student newspaper. I found nothing to support notability in my
WP:BEFORE search. And then there's this: on the Talk page, the original creator of the page says it should be deleted because they have discovered "much of it's content is either unverifiable or demonstrably untrue". Unfortunately, by the time this was posted, it was too late for a
G7 and the editor did not pursue the matter further.
RL0919 (
talk)
17:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Although I did find (Revolving feast of plays offered in dinner theater,
Northwest Florida Daily News; Fort Walton Beach, Fla. [Fort Walton Beach, Fla]24 June 1994: E.5.), which outlines his career as a teacher of theatre arts and director of local playhouses, it is his hometown paper and I cannot find enough non-local,
WP:SIGCOV to support
WP:CREATIVE. (feel free to ping me to reconsider if you manage to source it).
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
00:09, 27 June 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 article is on a hotel that never actually existed. It was planned, but never constructed. The only source that talks about it, which is what the entirety of the information on the article comes from, is a single blurb from the New York Times which is nothing more than an announcement of the project, and is not enough to pass the
WP:GNG. Every other source being used in the article are about other things that were named after
Hendrik Hudson and have nothing to do with this building at all. Searching for more sources on this non-existent hotel brings up nothing but mentions of a different, completely unrelated hotel that bore the same name. And while the argument could be made that this article could be re-purposed to be about that one instead, there is nothing I can find to indicate any notability for that location either.
Rorshacma (
talk)
17:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Withdrawn by nominator - Uncle G has demonstrated below that this case isn't as clear cut as I initially believed, so I am withdrawing this nomination.
Rorshacma (
talk)
15:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Alpern, Andrew (1992). "The Hendrik Hudson at 380 Riverside Drive". Luxury Apartment Houses of Manhattan: An Illustrated History. Dover Architecture Series. Courier Corporation. pp. 77–83.
ISBN9780486273709.
Comment The different hotel I was referring to in my nomination was actually not the one your links are referring to, but to the one in Troy, New York that bears the same name. I actually did not find the links you provided, which seem to indicate that the plans for the 18 floor hotel were scrapped to instead build an 8 story apartment complex with the same name. At this point, I'm leaning towards Withdrawing my nomination, and substantially rewriting, expanding, and renaming (as the final building was apparently never referred to as a "hotel" in its name) this article to cover the actual final building, based on your sources. But I will leave this AFD open for a bit longer, to see if any other editors have any comments on its notability. Nice work finding this information, by the way. I had only been searching for information regarding the proposed hotel without success, and had not considered that the proposal had transformed so radically to the final building.
Rorshacma (
talk)
00:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
I started with the ignorant question Is there actually a building on Riverside Drive called the Hendrik Hudson? ☺
Personally, I think that Salwen has made a somewhat tenuous connection, and were I rewriting this I would include the 1897 plan merely to show that Johnson and Kahn were not the first to have such an idea. Once you get to
Alpern 1992 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFAlpern1992 (
help) you will realize how much of a potential article there is here anyway. The 1907 pictures in the MCNY collection indicated by Alpern I would expect to be public domain now, and would be worth chasing up by a Wikipedia writer with access, for starters.
See
Penrhiw Priory (
AfD discussion) for another building with history that needs attention and that Wikipedia had us believe was (just) a hotel, by the way.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There is no inherent notability for government agencies and, as we established in
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solicitor General of Washington, some obscure national and sub-national agencies are not necessarily sufficiently
WP:N for WP. This article on a Ghanaian regulatory board has only two sources, one of which is non-RS, the other of which is non-
WP:INDEPENDENT. A BEFORE on JSTOR, newspapers.com, and Google Books finds no references. A BEFORE on Google News finds limited, fleeting, and purely incidental references that don't cover the organization itself, merely mentioning "XYZ was approved by the Energy Commissions" and so forth. (Note that there is a different and separate Ghanian body called the Atomic Energy Commission.)
Chetsford (
talk)
17:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment A GF attempt to add additional sources underscores my last comment, that the handful of additional references available on BEFORE are not about the organization itself, they merely mention it. For example, this reference
[5], etc. While a laudable effort, this does not represent
WP:SIGCOV as intended by our guidelines. While the sources prove the Ghanian Energy Commission exists, mere proof of existence is not proof of notability.
Chetsford (
talk)
17:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep The agency is a major energy regulator in Ghana, covering electricity, clean energy and sustainable development. The commission is also has key regulatory oversight of the following national agencies so it cannot be considered an obscure parastatal:
While this may be true, an organization's real-life importance is not synonymous with its WP notability. Often the two intersect, meaning major organizations tend to generate the type of
WP:SIGCOV needed to achieve
WP:N. However, WP ultimately evaluates organizations based on factors unrelated to its statutory characterization.
Chetsford (
talk)
17:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep In the first place,the article was nominated for speedy deletion because of potential copyright infringement as per the initial deletion request explanation. This has been duly corrected.
Ataavi (
talk)
17:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Major regulatory body in Ghana, managing all forms of energy distribution and development in the country. It is comparable to
Ontario Power Generation. It would benefit from expansion, and might want to look to the OPG article as a template.
Risker (
talk)
06:22, 2 July 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: Appears to be coverage of her, including conspiracy theories involving her father's death (frm Google translate of the sources). Polish Wikipedia has article with more references>
PamD08:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment, this should never have come to afd as there is an obvious merge/redirect target of her father, that should have been discussed on the talkpage, but that is by the by as she meets
WP:GNG with the sources contained in the article and the others at
the Polish WP article.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
23:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep. She's out of BIO1E since she's also covered in the context of aiding her father (and not just in the context of the crash and the missing body). While there are a great deal of sources here out there covering her, many of them are brief and coverage is primarily in the context of assisting her father during the war. I'm leaning keep due to the number of references and due to some of them - e.g.
this one being in depth.
Icewhiz (
talk)
08:55, 1 July 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. Doesn't meet
WP:NBAND yet. The radio coverage cited is just internet radio, not a major national network. No significant RS coverage of their album release. –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱14:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Having talked with Discospinster
talk We will upload spanish references so the wiki is complete. Please do not delete or return to draft. Thanks and have a nice day. User: Freeinformationfront
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No indication of notability for this recently-released album. Some user-submitted reviews and blogs but no significant discussion by major review sites either in English or Spanish. ...discospinstertalk13:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
I didn't do the merge - why did some one type my username in to make it look as I was typing one of the above comments?
Vorbee (
talk) 20:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the history of this page, it looks as if my name was copied by Freeinformationfront - a Wikipedian whose username is in red letters, so does not have a userpage.
Vorbee (
talk)
20:44, 27 June 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.
Wikipedia is not a directory that every 26 year old have an article. The concern is: there is seem not many news coverage about him, to pass
WP:GNG, the wikipedia guideline for inclusion criteria.
Matthew hk (
talk)
23:02, 26 June 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 result was redirect to
Gadsden County, Florida. Well, it seems like nobody here has found any substantial sourcing for the topic that could meet
WP:GNG and it's not clear that
WP:NGEO would apply either. With respect to The Grid's argument, if some evidence of this place's notability comes up we could revisit the close.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
07:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm proposing a deletion and redirect to
Gadsden County, Florida as I can't find any reliable sources that talk about this community and it doesn't appear to be notable as a standalone article. I boldly redirected but the creator has objected.
tl;dr fails
WP:NGEO.
Praxidicae (
talk)
11:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - No mention of this place on GNIS. The article links to a map, but there's no mention of this place on any of the maps. The links in the article are either dead, or don't mention this place. I tried to speedy delete this article thinking it was a hoax.
Magnolia677 (
talk)
11:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge and/or Rewrite - The description of this community seems to place it north of both Quincy and Gretna, which means the geotag for it is wrong. The dead links in the article are proof that the internet is not forever, but we can always try to archive them. -------
User:DanTD (
talk)
12:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
I looked in hard sources too (books, newspapers) and found very little about this St. John Florida, it's just a small community, basically a community association.
Praxidicae (
talk)
12:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - Slightly, off topic, I looked at some maps of Gadsden County, Florida, and I found a lot of communities that were excluded from the navbox. ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
14:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - This is an interesting publication I found that was on the county's website through the Internet Archive:
[6] - page 6 has a passing mention of the city of St. John and this pertains to US 90. Strangely the description: Mt. Pleasant borders the cities of Gretna and St. John, Florida, as well as Chattahoochee. Looking at
Mount Pleasant, Florida, the second sentence in the lede paragraph was added by an IP user in 2010 (well, it might be the account here as well looking at the edit history). The guide looks to be something official by the county
here. Maybe it's a former boom town given this is the county where people bought Coca Cola shares when they were cheap (and before its popularity). I'm assuming good faith editing and there has to be something there. –
The Grid (
talk)
21:21, 27 June 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
WP:PROMOTIONAL article by a pseudo-SPA on an app developer lacks any RS except a single, questionable reference to androidauthority.com. A BEFORE fails to find anything that could be added.
Chetsford (
talk)
08:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
This is not a promotional. As you can clearly see, I just discussed this software company's contribution to the development of mobile apps in the last decade. The fact that I could only find a few non-promotional references doesn't mean that it is invalid. Why do I think this is worth being on Wikipedia? It's for the same reasons Google is here. It's not my place to promote a business on Wikipedia. If there is something you think looks promotional in my article, kindly point it out and I'll happily update my work. Please refrain from speculating and base your comments on factual information rather than assumptions. Thanks! :) --
Mwengengona (
talk)
22:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Please refrain from speculating and base your comments on factual information Hmmm. Okay. The facts are you made exactly the minimum number of minor edits (10) to achieve autoconfirmed status and then created an article on a company sourced almost entirely to the company's own website, then stopped editing on WP entirely until said article was nominated for deletion at which point you reappeared.
WP:DUCK applies.
Chetsford (
talk)
23:55, 26 June 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 appears to be a substantially similar version of an article previously deleted by unanimity at AfD (see original nom by
User:Randykitty of
Avenue Journal (magazine) (
AfD discussion)), with the exception that it is now operating under a different name. Its only reference is a Worldcat listing and a BEFORE finds no further references.
Chetsford (
talk)
08:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
It is very similar. The older article of course did not have the claim about a relaunch that is, coincidentally, a few days from now.
Uncle G (
talk)
23:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete As not passing GNG and otherwise lacking notability. I do admire that they link to a WorldCat entries which shows no libraries hold the publication. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
01:59, 3 July 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 article gives undue attention to an economic theory that is not well-known and is not publicly defined. After researching the topic, the only references or explanations I could find were from lobbying and policy interest groups. There is no rigorous definition of the curve, its underlying economic assumptions, or an empirical evidence of its merits. Its publication on wikipedia therefore cannot go further than baselessly popularizing the concept and is therefore against WP:NOTESSAY
Lordstevenbalogh (
talk)
22:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Well there's
Brimelow 1993 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBrimelow1993 (
help), which is what a lot of other sources cite. What Rahn and Fox studied in the 1990s was the relationship between government spending and economic growth, which you will find more than oddball WWW sites talking about. Of course, an article on that would also include the
Armey curve under the umbrella of the
BARS curve (named after
Barro,
Armey,
Rahn+Fox, and
Scully).
So … where did you actually look when you researched this?
Altunca, Faruk; Aydınb, Celil (2013-10-10). "The Relationship between Optimal Size of Government and Economic Growth: Empirical Evidence from Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria". Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 92: 66–75.
doi:
10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.639.
Miller, J. Corey. "Using the Armey Curve to Measure the Size of Government" (Document). University Research Center, Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning. {{
cite document}}: Unknown parameter |url= ignored (
help)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
I relisted this discussion early. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Masum Reza📞06:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. A quick look at gbooks (I can't be bothered to list any of them, but I wonder if the nom even looked) shows that this is discussed. Whether or not the curve is ill-defined and the claims baseless is entirely irrelevant to whether we should have an article (but if that can be cited, it should most definitely be included in the page). Claiming that such a short stub is an essay is also hard to swallow, so I'm seeing no basis for deletion from either perspective.
SpinningSpark22:51, 26 June 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 Wrong venue. I'm closing this as an inappropriate nomination. You can achieve what you want by just redirecting the page. There really is no valid reason for deleting the history of the page.
SpinningSpark18:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Operation Stranglehold is a stub cited to a self-published source. The operation is better covered in
Operation Raindance, which describes Stranglehold's origin as a followup to Raindance. With a more complete description with reliable cites, Raindance renders Stranglehold unnecessary. As the original author of both articles, I believe I have a right to request this as a speedy deletion.
Georgejdorner (
talk)
04:50, 26 June 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, if verified - Potentially does pass NFOOTY - 21apps(*) for Yadanarbon in 2013 in the
Myanmar National League, which is listed a
WP:FPL. *needs verifying of course, but we're talking about Burmese language sources which can be notoriously difficult to find for non-speakers.
World Football supports the fact he joined Yadanarbon.
R96Skinner (
talk)
11:10, 26 June 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.
Weak keep on the basis that
sources like this do exist and there are probably more hidden behind web.archive and the like. I'm rather persuaded by a lot of the keep arguments in the previous afd while also having to acknowledge that I can't find anything beyond what the original author linked in that first afd.
Nole(
chat·
edits)00:55, 25 June 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.