The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Sure, it exists;
if it exists, there is porn of it. But there is no significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources. The article's sources are 1) a fringe psychoanalytic case report on a man with various fetishes, including a glasses fetish. 2) a two-sentence dictionary definition. 3) two blog posts about "megane", a Japanese term for attractive anime characters with glasses. It's debatable whether "megane" is even the same thing as glasses fetishism - finding a trait attractive is not really the same as having a fetish for it.
A
WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing better, mainly passing mentions and random self-published websites. There's one case report on Pubmed from 1966
[1] - obviously not
WP:MEDRS, a couple sentences in a tabloid
[2], and some lightweight stuff about megane on Kotaku
[3]. Basically, all that RS has to say about this subject is that it's a fetish for glasses and it exists. That is not enough to justify an article.
SpicyMilkBoy (
talk)
23:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Found out that a man was recently jailed due to his uncontrolled glasses fetish, other than that the internet is silent on this fetish.
MistyGraceWhite (
talk)
11:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Independent notability for any character needs to be established to justify a separate article. For future reference, @
Franki3971:, see
Naruto Uzumaki and how that article is laid out, specifically how most of that article (or any featured article about a character) mostly contains real-world information about the character's creation, and their reception.--十八22:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Perhaps not, but the character does have a pretty extensive bio at the main page, so unless that is removed a redirect is probably the best choice.
Devonian Wombat (
talk)
21:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sole keep vote is arguing that notability is inherited from one actress; has not addressed the argument made against this. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)04:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - I would like the choice to be this one. While I did place some reception info the other day in order to get some improvement, this was
Daniella Monet's first starring role in a TV movie as the other known TV movies like the Fred movies she worked in had her in supporting roles. --
Rtkat3 (
talk)
14:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 I do not think that
WP:FRINGE really applies, at least not the way it usually does in physics-related AfD's (perpetual motion machines, etc.). The work was published in a
real journal. My concern is that it's simply
too soon — one very recent paper and a splash of press do not the basis for an article make. The Physics World item is just an interview with one of the authors — basically a press release in all but name, without any effort to even get the standard quote from an expert not involved in the work. New Scientist is
famously sensationalist; I wouldn't rely on their reporting to establish the notability of anything, though they're probably OK for supplementing material on a topic whose notability is already demonstrated. The Futurism (who?) source is just a pointer to the Physics World interview, with a few brief paragraphs of summary, so it's neither independent nor in-depth. (Amusingly, it also gets the title of the journal wrong: Physical Review of [sic] Letters.) The publicity people at Perimeter Institute earned their paychecks, but proposals like this appear all the time, and few of them go anywhere. This article is simply not warranted at the present time.
XOR'easter (
talk)
19:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete It's definitely not
WP:FRINGE, although I'm also skeptical that this idea will prove fruitful. In any case, it's not our job to judge scientific merit: it suffices to notice that there's no significant coverage in secondary sources (how could there be? the paper has just been published!). The coverage it received is pretty much only the announcement that the paper was published. Such coverage is nowadays routine for papers published by major institutes, if we would allow that to establish notability Wikipedia would have hundreds of articles about papers that got ignored by the scientific community. If this one makes an impact, then it will be the time to write an article about it. Not now.
Tercer (
talk)
20:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete – it is definitely
too soon, as noted above. The paper is available online, with the title "CPT-Symmetric Universe" (the title "Antiverse" for the article is a popularization). WP does not (and should not) include articles on a published proposal before the notability guidelines have been met, and these cannot be met until some secondary source reviews the topic. —
Quondum21:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep The discussion here seems to be about whether the subject of this article is true or not as part of science's description of nature.
I believe we should be talking about whether it is true that the anti-universe hypothesis is a serious topic for debate within the scientific community.
I contend that it is a genuine part of serious scientific debate. because it originates from a highly prestigious institution and has already made some experimental predictions that have been born out.
Wikipedia should be helping it's users who come across this debate for the first time with a brief introduction to its nature ,origin and the arguments on all sides. If the hypothesis is proved wrong then it will form part of the history of science and should be kept to help our readers understand how the debate went and the reasons the hypothesis was rejected.
We are not here talking about fringe or crank science. The encyclopedia is an educational tool often turned to when something new is experienced for the first time. It should reflect all sides of genuine debates in science as they occur.
Lumos3 (
talk)
Lumos3, I'm afraid you're missing the point. All three comments in favour of deletion argued about
WP:TOOSOON, not
WP:FRINGE. As I stated above, the paper is definitely not
WP:FRINGE, and I think the AfD nominator made a mistake in saying that it probably was.
Note that being true is not a criterion for deciding whether a scientific hypothesis should be covered in Wikipedia. We have, for example, an article on
Steady state cosmology. The criterion is notability, and the steady-state hypothesis is definitely notable, as it was debated by several serious scientists. The antiverse, on the other hand, hasn't been debated by anyone yet, simply because the paper has just been published. Perhaps it will inspire follow-up work by other authors, and so become part of the scientific debate. In this case it should be included in Wikipedia, but only after that happens. Now it's
WP:TOOSOON.
Tercer (
talk)
19:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Then surely a debate beginning at a well respected institution of science will be noteworthy , or will become noteworthy very soon. Are you suggesting we should delete this article and then reinstate it when the debate is more fully engaged? Isn't this just a bit bureaucratic? Wikipedia's prime purpose is to educate. As the debate progresses people new to it will come here to find a summary of what is going on, they will find nothing. We should note in the article the tentative nature of this hypothesis and that it is part of an ongoing debate , then record the debate as it happens and eventually any outcome.
Lumos3 (
talk)
14:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't be so sure. Plenty of papers published by major institutes fail to cause any impact. This policy is not pointless bureaucracy, it is there precisely because we shouldn't try to predict which papers will be taken seriously by the scientific community. There's no harm done in copying the current article to your userspace. If and when debate starts we can reinstate it, so that the readers can know what is going on. What we shouldn't have is an article about a non-existing debate.
Tercer (
talk)
15:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Then surely a debate beginning at a well respected institution of science will be noteworthy , or will become noteworthy very soon. There's certainly no guarantee that it will. Prestige of an institution has little to do with it, apart from their being able to afford more publicity.
XOR'easter (
talk)
00:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Gabungus
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Article about local charity that has been unsourced since 2007. Some sources suggested on talk page but nothing that strongly supports notability. In my view does not pass
WP:NCORP.
Mccapra (
talk)
18:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - I'm finding one bit of decent sized coverage in
The Mercury News, but that appears to be it. All other coverage appears to be only in local sources, or merely mentions of the charity with no further information. That single source would not allow this to pass the
WP:GNG.
Rorshacma (
talk)
15:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. The article has 0 refs. First page Google presence (which is considered to be the most reliable and followed) is on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Yelp, Subject's Website & Mercury News. Just one article (that too which is too less) certainly does not make notable.
Yourmasterishere (
talk)
13:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Promotional spam. I nominated it for G11, a brand new user contested the tag with their first edit. Entirely promotional, unsourced apart from directory listings - no indication of an NCORP pass.
GirthSummit (blether)17:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Just adding that an IP editor saw fit to blank this AfD discussion earlier. Someone is very eager to circumvent our editorial processes to retain this page.
GirthSummit (blether)19:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There's a fair amount of trivial and primary coverage of the subject, but I can't find any coverage that actually attempts to paint a biographical portrait or otherwise actually analyzes her life or work. I don't think that she meets
WP:GNG or
WP:NPOLITICIAN at the moment, and would suggest redirecting to
Best for Britain, the context that a majority of the currently cited sources refer to her in. A separate issue that I'm realizing now is that this isn't a great disambiguator; if kept or redirected the page should probably be retitled
Naomi Smith (politician). signed, Rosguilltalk17:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Independent notability for any character needs to be established to justify a separate article. For future reference, @
Franki3971:, see
Naruto Uzumaki and how that article is laid out, specifically how most of that article (or any featured article about a character) mostly contains real-world information about the character's creation, and their reception.--十八22:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Character is not notable at all. No significant, non-primary, non-trivial mentions for the subject. Kori (
@)03:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Pretty clear consensus to remove the article. Whether this should happen through a merge or a deletion isn't so clear, but there are unrebutted concerns about the sourcing that make the delete argument the stronger one.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
08:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Wikidata#Reception. The sources are either passing mentions or uses of the item as an example. There is no substantial analysis of the topic, thus it fails
WP:WEBCRIT. Probably deserves a mention on the Wikidata page, but a stand-alone article is silly.
SpicyMilkBoy (
talk)
19:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. I can't support merging as, unfortunately,
Wikidata is a very bad article (I count five independent sources cited, out of 41 citations—
WP:REFSPAM?), and this item doesn't strike me as particularly significant to the project's history. –
Arms & Hearts (
talk)
14:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 per nom. Searching for additional sources brings up nothing but additional mentions in plot summaries, and no kind of actual discussion or analysis. This could possibly be used as a Redirect to
Rogue Trooper, though personally I'd imagine people using this as a search term may actually be looking for information on
G.I. Joe (comics) instead.
Rorshacma (
talk)
15:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete as I agree that it's not a very searchable term on its own since it is so broad. It doesn't look to be viewed very often to redirect to Rogue Trooper, anyway (not zero, but not frequent):
last month,
last year. -
2pou (
talk)
18:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, article is sourced only to primary sources and described from an entirely in-universe point of view, and therefore it fails GNG and ALLPLOT. It is not a useful redirect, since anyone looking for this title would probably be more likely to be looking for information on G.I. Joe.
Devonian Wombat (
talk)
22:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
DELETE If the information isn't already in the main article you can merge it over, but this article needs to be deleted so people searching for G.I. Joe comic don't accidentally come here by mistake and get directed to the wrong place.
DreamFocus02:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Exactly. So far we have unanimous delete !votes (myself included), which I'm suggesting is the current trend: everyone !voting delete. However, that is only after one day, and things could potentially change over the course of another six days. If that trend were to swing, and we subsequently get 10 keep !votes that are convincing and potentially sway some existing delete !votes, possibly even improving the article a-la
WP:HEY, then that kept article should still probably be moved. Is that likely? Probably not, but you never know. Perhaps someone uncovers a number of print magazines or someone uncovers a number of publications they studied in college... Likelihood? One in a million...?
"So you're telling me there's a chance..." GAHAHAHA!!! *sigh* ... Hahaha! ha... ha... Classic. -
2pou (
talk)
17:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Other than vapid celebrity gossip (ie. Look what this hunky guy got his supermodel wife as a push gift!) there is no coverage of Khalife or his company.
Praxidicae (
talk)
14:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Week Keep, the sources provided include numerous business mags which show that the jeweller has significant coverage online which make it passable for gng. The tone could also be changed as well.
Mr. Apollo (
talk to me bebe) 01:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)sock strike
Praxidicae (
talk)
14:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, the sources mostly look like tabloid promo nonsense to me, maybe with a few scattered industry magazines, but I don't think those altogether look like enough either.
67.243.20.177 (
talk)
01:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 page should be deleted owing to reason that it is not at all important to have it. The duo it is talking have their separate biographical pages
Hira Mani and
Mani (actor). Thus the said husband wife duo page is useless and not making any sense, so it should be deleted.
USaamo (
talk·contribs) (uSaamo
14:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC))reply
Delete no reason to have this article when we have articles on the two people in this couple. They are not a performing group. I have no opinion on weather we should merge their articles, but we should not have 3 articles, only 2 or maybe 1 (although I suspect 2, but that is an issue for another day).
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
non notable youtuber, the sources are largely unreliable or small time, super local papers or a less read equivalent of bored panda (which is definitely not reliable.)
Praxidicae (
talk)
12:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 - Article is a gigantic bag of promotional, unsourced, trivial, unnecessary content. Kori (
@)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 person, there is no meaningful coverage of her in english or arabic, her pageant placement isn't notable as the pageant itself isn't notable and the only content about her anywhere else is gossipy nonsense about her posing naked.
Praxidicae (
talk)
11:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete I can't found any Arabic reliable source about her, and all Arabic coverage is meaningful related to unreliable websites. Also, I can't found anything about that she won "Queen of the Universe Pageant" on 2013! About enwiki sources: 1=general link for queenuniversepageant.com, 2 (same as 8), 5/7/10/11/15 not work, 5 (same as 10), 7 (same as 11), 6/16 her own account, 12/13 unreliable talking about "Miss expo"(???), 14 TedX. So non-notable from what I found --Alaa:)..!12:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 artist - I can't find any sources that cover her in depth and the few mentions I can find in reputable sources aren't even about her.
Praxidicae (
talk)
11:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. I looked for significant sources and found one brief interview from a source I'm not confident is reliable. I did add it to the article, though it adds next to nothing.
DiamondRemley39 (
talk)
12:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 person/creative professional, no coverage in reliable sources, mostly sourced to black hat SEO sites masquerading as legitimate outlets.
Praxidicae (
talk)
10:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. I hesitated to nominate this for deletion due to the Maxim coverage, but I see now that it is marked as an article sponsored by an advertising company. – Thjarkur(talk)20:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Per
WP:LISTPEOPLE - The list of finalists is already available on the show's article. Most names do not satisfy the WP:BLP requirements thus do not have inherited notability. There is no need for such low level profiling on a separate list. Of the seven seasons of this show, only season 1 has a spinoff like this. Also various other articles relating to the Voice TV series in other countries have also been deleted:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Voice of Ireland finalists (series 1)Ajf773 (
talk)
09:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 this is, like many others, just PR spam from unreliable sources (the outlets cited may have legitimate uses but these specific publications are undeclared press releases pushed by agents.)
Praxidicae (
talk)
10:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The GNIS spot is off a bit to the west; looking back into old topos and aerials, the actual spot is a building on the south side of an orchard. Searching seems to show that this building houses a pumping station for an oil pipeline. At any rate all evidence is that there was never a settlement here, and the pumping station doesn't seem notable.
Mangoe (
talk)
02:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak keep In addition to the evidence SportingFlyer found, there's evidence of the name's continued use; see
here (referring to utility work in the area) and
here (referring to a nearby overcrossing). The one thing that gives me pause is that we only have one piece of evidence that anyone lived here, and that's the stated home of a person in an out-of-town yacht race; if that's somehow a mistake, then this looks a lot more like a locale than a populated place. I'll take the source at its word, but I'd really like to find more evidence of habitation here.
TheCatalyst31Reaction•
Creation22:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Newspaper coverage is almost entirely within the context of the pipeline. There's no indication that this was actually a settlement beyond the single "someone lived there" reference, and it certainly doesn't have enough significant coverage to meet GNG. –
dlthewave☎03:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
comment Being an "actual location" is of course not a claim to notability, and we are (as usual) foundering on that issue and falling back on the claim to be a community. But the best anyone seems to be doing, it seems to me, is that the pumping station is used as a reference point of a locale. There's just no discussion of the place as a community, much less as one officially established.
Mangoe (
talk)
17:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The subject of this article fails
WP:GNG and
WP:MUSICBIO. None of the references cited in the article discuss him. As a matter, all of them are promotional links to the subject's music. A Google search of the subject doesn't bring up coverage in reliable sources. The award he is a recipient of is not notable. This
lengthy review is from an unreliable source. None of the subject's albums or singles have been critically reviewed.
Versace1608Wanna Talk?23:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Hi, kindly note ghanacelebrities is a notable site in Ghana which writes about celebrities and lifestyle. With the awards, WMA is a major award in Ghana hence the musician passes for GNG
Kwamevaughan (
talk)
14:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Kwamevaughan: Ghanacelebrities is not a reliable source; the website does not have an editorial oversight. Per
this page, they promote artists and the artists' music on their site and on social media for a maximum fee of GH₵ 4700 ($1000 US dollars). Ghanacelebrities also offers advertising services. With regards to the Western Music Awards, a Google search of the ceremony doesn't show it having in-depth coverage. I was only able to find is announcements about previous editions.
Versace1608Wanna Talk?15:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)reply
—- @
User:Versace1608 , the awards ceremony is relatively new as compared to other awards such as vgma and its in the same league as 4syte music awards and 3music awards.
Kwamevaughan (
talk)
@
Kwamevaughan: First you said WMA is a major award in Ghana and after I challenged that assertion, you claimed it is "relatively new". I don't know what your definition of "relatively new" is, but I do not consider any awards ceremony with three previous editions held new. As it currently stands, there aren't any in-depth coverage of WMA available online. If you're going to keep your position, you will need to provide in-depth coverage to support it.
Versace1608Wanna Talk?17:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - User has made many articles similar to this one, none of them have any notability due to lack of reliable sourcing.
🌺Kori🌺 - (
@)
17:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep The 2014 election is notable by being the first time a Latina was elected in its city's history. Likely additional sources are available. --
Enos733 (
talk)
16:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete It is not the primary city in its metro area, so it really does not warrant separate articles for each election. The mayor of Chula Vista is rarely mentioned in media outside of California, so it's unlikely that such a race would be covered with original reporting (not the reprinted wire feeds as shown above). SounderBruce04:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep the nature of the election, the issues raised and the broad range of coverage received for the election (as listed in the article and as described above) satisfies
WP:NEVENT. There are huge numbers of election articles that should be deleted; this isn't one of them.
Alansohn (
talk)
19:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete we do not need articles for every local election that occurs globally and this local election was only locally notable. Some mayoral elections will receive greater than local notability and those can be kept. The Baltimore Sun and NY Daily News are not actually national coverage - those articles were clearly written by local San Diego journalists and were re-run on those websites, possibly as part of an affiliate program - we've seen this before with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution hosting online local content written elsewhere and for a different community. At best this should be merged into a "Mayor of Chula Vista" article.
SportingFlyerT·C20:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)reply
San Diego paper is "regional", not "local". It was an editorial decision by two major East Coast newspapers to print news they found to be significant and national. There's no need to speculate about the other stuff.
Djflem (
talk)
10:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Topics do not become more notable just because some newspapers outside the local coverage area happened to make an "editorial decision" to reaggregate a bit of wire service coverage originating in the topic's own local area. For either the Baltimore Sun or the NY Daily News to count as notability-bolstering coverage on "nationalizing" grounds, those papers would have to have sent their own journalists to Chula Vista to generate original coverage that existed separately from the wire-serviced local stuff.
Bearcat (
talk)
13:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Was the news of the election carried in two East Coast newspapers? Yes. Is standard "papers would have to have sent their own journalists"..."to generate original coverage" stated anywhere in Wikipedia? Please provide link.
Djflem (
talk)
02:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
It wasn't actually carried in two East Coast newspapers, which is the issue - we're not applying an arbitrary standard here because we don't like it. A Newspapers.com search for the Baltimore Sun shows this article was not printed. The sources you found were Tribune wire articles, written in San Diego, and added to a database that most Tribune websites pull from. For instance,
[7] or
[8] - notice how the sd-se-chula-vista-mayor-election-20181012-story.html is the same in all of those? The article hasn't actually been printed in any those newspapers, they're just Tribune Publishing newspapers, it takes the story and wraps it in that newspaper's outline. As an example, I randomly clicked on
[9], currently in the news, and changed the URL to
[10] and bam, the story comes up. Clicking the Chula Vista tag or the author's name in any of the articles doesn't bring anything up, further proof it wasn't actually of interest to anyone on the east coast.
SportingFlyerT·C04:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your response. That "papers would have to have sent their own journalists" and "to generate original coverage" was the claim I was curious about.
Djflem (
talk)
19:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete While I appreciate the effort to make Wikipedia a useful source, Wikipedia is not a news website. Maybe election records could be kept for larger cities, but as some users pointed out above, Chula Vista isn't a particularly large city. To users pointing out this was an important election - perhaps add a stub tag and start adding content about why this was important. I haven't heard anything about these elections on my local news. WallabyWombat❯❯❯Let's Talk!09:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge in a very limited form to
Chula_Vista,_California#Government. A regular election in a mid-size city cannot satisfy
WP:NEVENT and the coverage demonstrated is not significant. "The first X elected to Office in Place"-type articles are only notable if the office in that place is already notable and Mayor of the 76th-largest city is not automatically notable.
Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)04:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:BLP of a graffiti artist, not
properly referenced as passing
WP:NARTIST. The sources here are a neighbourhood
hyperlocal and a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person on a local interest
blog, which are not notability-clinching sources in and of themselves if they're the best references you can find -- but nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to show more than just two pieces of local interest coverage.
Bearcat (
talk)
05:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Every claim in the article is now reliably sourced. He appears to be very notable.
The New York Times had this to say about him on January 29,2020: The Los Angeles-based artist Tristan Eaton has been painting mostly with spray cans since his teenage hit-and-run graffiti attacks in Detroit and New York. But he designed the Super Bowl tickets and game program on his computer, wrapping a century of N.F.L. highlights around a gleaming Lombardi Trophy. The look and the spirit of street art is there,” he said. “The computer is just another tool.” Mr. Eaton, 41, went back to spray cans to turn a 9-foot tall, fiberglass model of the Lombardi into a dazzling collage of aquas, pinks, purples, oranges and greens, art deco, palm trees and N.F.L. milestones. It will be outside the stadium as fans arrive on game day.
An October 2019 New York Times article said "The women in Tristan Eaton’s mural are striking, strong, steady in their gaze. They project power. Their silver and blue complexions, the red accents and the white stars streaming across them, shout authority. He grew up in Detroit and New York, now lives in Los Angeles. “I’m cheering the idea of women having a greater voice and an equal seat at the table,” Mr. Eaton said. “Sometimes seeing imagery like this can solidify people’s viewpoints and they realize they’re not alone.”ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
18:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Only if other sources independently wrote about his authorship of a chapter in a book to contextualize the importance of that work, and not if you simply use that work as circular sourcing for its own existence as a work.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Coolabahapple: I found "The Art of Spray Paint" book you mentioned. The book is by Lori Zimmer, not Eaton. So it is about him, not by him. There is a three-page profile on him on pages 78-81. Example text: "These cultural conglomerations have become Eaton’s calling card, permeating his commercial, gallery, and mural work, which has reinvented architectural facades in cities across the globe. Eaton’s work has a discern- able dynamism and complexity that has consistently attracted commercial clients, especially lifestyle and fashion labels seeking to expand their brand with art. The artist’s ability to mash up elements from a brand’s identity into gorgeous murals is as alluring to his clients as their size. His murals often sprawl to expansive sizes, sometimes upward of 20 feet (6 m) and more, meshing art and branding, and have a much greater effect than any billboard ever could. Much like artist Shepard Fairey, Eaton’s style transcends the genre and bleeds into commercial work, attracting clients for not only his skill set, but also his vision and brand understanding."ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
15:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Johnpacklambert, Did you actually read the article? The subject is not used as a self-published source anywhere. It is full of independent sources that talk about his work, as well as the NYTimes above.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
20:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Above people are trying to cite the fact he wrote a chapter in a book as a sign of notability. A chapter is a book is not a sign of notability, since you wrote the work.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Note that the Google Books overview page
here denotes Eaton as a "Contributor" (select the "More about this edition" to expand the box). It is unclear to what extent Eaton contributed toward the book, though, because I cannot access the content about him in Google Books at this time, for example, to see if the content is attributed to him. North America100003:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Being in the collection of MOMA is almost sufficient by itself towards passing the notability bar, but in addition the article is well sourced.
Curiocurio (
talk)
19:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep – Per a source review, the subject meets
WP:BASIC. Some of the articles contain interview content, but also contain non-interview content that discuss the subject and his works in significant detail. North America100003:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Instagram figure, no coverage (some of the sources in Farsi is about university result announcement ), no reviews, fails GNG, I did a thorough research about her and couldn't find anything showing her notability. It should be speedy deleted
Mardetanha (
talk)
11:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Enough reliable resources mentioned her and this is a criteria for notability. Although her notability isn't as much as great and famous actors and presenters. I suggest that speedy deletion tag changes to refimprove tag. I suggest that you take a look at her Instagram profile. 860K followers is big enough to name her an influencer.
MrInfo2012 Talk 21:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Having Xk followers is not criteria for notability, I couldn't find single source about her biography. only some poor metions in Iranian tabloids
Mardetanha (
talk)
16:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Not notable at all. Deleted 3 times in fawiki. You can't find any reliable source about this person. One of the references is a personal blog about his PhD test result!
ARASH PT talk 16:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. From what I understand from the sources, none of the ones (other than potentially, and probably not, the Gilan Media video) constitute actual substantive (non-trivial) coverage in reliable secondary sources. Even if the Gilan Media video was a good source (which I doubt based on the quality of the other sources) it wouldn't be nearly enough. The fawiki deletions, from people who know the language and the sources better, are also indicative of Nikrah's lack of notability. Best, Kevin (aka
L235·t·c)
02:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and Arash.pt. A search on her name in Persian shows no important results. Clearly non notable even locally.
Diderotd (
talk)
07:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 musical band having no in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Each member of the group is non notable & references provided are not reliable sources as they have no reputation for fact checking & lack editorial oversight. They also do not satisfy
WP:SINGER.
Celestina007 (
talk)
13:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - The group doesn't appear notable. I agree. This is a great example to illustrate the principle that "well-known doesn't necessarily mean notable" since we have all kinds of sources about the band, but none of them that I've seen appear particularly reliable.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
19:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - The band satisfies notability requirements in
WP:SINGER on at least points 1, 4 and 5. The easiest one to document is 5: Frozen Crown have released two albums on
Scarlet Records[1] which comfortably satisfies the requirements for a "more important independent label": the label was founded in 1998, and its own article lists 16 other current artists notable enough to have their own pages as well as more than 30 former artists that do so. I could make a case for the other points, but I don't believe that discussion would be very productive, as notability should now be established and I would prefer to use my time improving this and other articles. As the original contributor of the article, I do take the point that the first version could be better sourced and will work to address that.
Laanders (
talk)
09:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - I feel that a band with over 13 million views on Scarlet Records is probably more than "well known", they have physical media available and are obviously a successful band — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
87.75.94.117 (
talk)
01:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 as passes
WP:NMUSIC criteria 2 (only one criteria needed) with charting releases on the Korean national music charts, namely one album and five singles as confirmed by the references in the article. Also, the awards he won and was nominated for are notable awards, but its the charting that clinches it, imv
Atlantic306 (
talk)
23:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Users paid to edit arguing to keep are generally given less weight then users without skin in the game. Obvious meatpuppets need to be policy based to have any impact in the outcome.
SpartazHumbug!22:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I believe that the 5 sources in the Reference section of the original article should be sufficient for an article of this type. Additionally any show at a permanent well known gallery should serve as additional proof of notability.
Slipandslide (
talk)
12:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Jooojay:Art shows at well known galleries, not owned or controlled by the artist should always be considered when applying GNG to artists. To state otherwise is to ignore common sense.
Slipandslide (
talk)
20:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Where you exhibit is not specifically mentioned in WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST, which only mentions shows at siginficant venues like the Venice Biennale. You could show at lots of well-known galleries and never get a review, and thus not be notable as there would be no coverage.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
12:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I see many new citations were added today to this article, however they don't seem like they are reliable sources (see
WP:RS). A lot of gallery PR publications.
Jooojay (
talk)
21:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Bmore is not a national publication, and the ArtDaily link appears to be an ad for the "Haines Gallery". The majority of your new edits today are not done with inline citations and as of now appears to be original research, I don't see you demonstrating any notability or strengthening your argument yet.
Jooojay (
talk)
22:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Slipandslide: Ohhhhhhhhhh, I see. Please then describe which part of the special notability guideline
WP:ARTIST is met by this artist? Looking forward to your answer and learning something new, as there is always time for learning!
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
21:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I've tagged the article as undisclosed paid editing, since Slipandslide
just told me this is a paid editing gig, but I do not see it mentioned on this AFD page, nor on the article talk page or on their user page.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
22:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
ThatMontrealIP:I also told you that I had disclosed the contribution on my User Talk page by adding the required template there. My understanding from Paid-contribution_disclosure is that the disclosure may be made in any of 3 places including the User|Talk page. Therefore I will ask you to remove that template.
Slipandslide (
talk)
00:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
It makes sense that it was made by a paid editor. The template should stay on the article for now, and the article (if it's not deleted) needs deep clean up per
WP:CONPOL. Also this maybe a COI situation, per
WP:PAID.
Jooojay (
talk)
01:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
CommentI am the director of exhibitions at the Southeastern Center of Contemporary Art (SECCA). Many, now well known, artists have been featured in exhibitions at SECCA. Taha Heydari is one such artist. We feel that his work measures up to the other artists who have come before him and we see Heydari as a strong voice for for Iranian artists living in exile. KEEP Signed CDossel— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Cdossel (
talk •
contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
promotional and non-notable. Probable paid editor rsponsible for a number of similar articles. The references look impressive, but they do not hold up: they are promotional interviews where the person speaks whatever he pleases--as can be seen from the titles and confirmed by looking at the text, some of them duplicate.
The various annual "OKAYAfrica's 100 Women" and "Forbes 30 under 30" and similar awards are promotional gimmicks, and do not lead to notability . Even the WorldBank Live page was clearly written by her own publicist. Unlike some other people written about by this editor, there is a possibility that she might become notable, in which case there will be no need for her to pay for an article, for a volunteer will know about her and write a proper article. DGG (
talk ) 23:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC) DGG (
talk )
06:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. The subject has co-founded several non-notable businesses. Some of her awards and recognition do appear to be valid. However, these accolades are not enough to warrant a separate article at this time. She fails
WP:GNG and it is
WP:TOOSOON for her to have a separate article.
Versace1608Wanna Talk?14:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep I have removed promotional content and added more reliable sources. The subject of this article have significant coverage in a good number of secondary sources. She passes
WP:GNG,
WP:NEXIST and
WP:NRV applied.
Kojomo (
talk)
19:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 I tagged this for speedy deletion because I can't find any independent sourcing or even local news coverage. Best,
GPL93 (
talk)
12:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. There is a narrow but policy-supported consensus that the sources provided do not suffice to support notability for this subject. No prejudice against restoring to draft if further improvements can be made to overcome these objections.
BD2412T01:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Non-notable person, Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, even the mentioned company is not on Wikipedia.
The business person is only locally "known", the Stanford link is a generic set of interviews done in Estonia to record and archive local lives of locals (notable and non-notable people).
One startup person among dozens of thousands.
Article wrote by only one editor with an excessive promoting tone.
Userland12 (
talk)
15:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)reply
She is the youngest Estonian female millionaire and definitely notable enough for English Wikipedia. There is nothing do debate about. Anyone who claims something else has not looked into the topic.
Ivo (
talk)
16:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. I cannot fully access the sources, as most of them are in Estonian. But I just wanted to note that the Forbes article linked above by
Pelmeen10 is a "contributor article" which is more like a blog than a magazine article; it does not suffice for notability.
BenKuykendall (
talk)
07:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Not only it fails
WP:PROMOTION but also fails
WP:GNG. "Millionaire" is not enough to describe notability. According to
List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_millionaires there are 10'000 millionaires in the country of the subject. Let's be honest, the company is nothing special (there are much bigger and notable companies that are not on Wikipedia). A local wood factory in Siberia can easily earn 1 million USD and may even have interviews in local newspapers or mentions in international websites but it doesn't mean it's worth for inclusion so the argument of money is pointless. The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity. On the outside sources, what we can see is PR organized by the subject's own company. Yes money can buy that, and you can pay to get articles written for you, but it doesn't make you notable. It's very visible by the promotional tone. For example the main source of the Wikipedia article is "Estonian World (press release) (blog)-Oct 27, 2016". No offense if but an article based on press releases and promotional interviews and guests posts, well that's PR and marketing, not encyclopedia content and therefore should be deleted if we don't want Wikipedia to become a PR garbage (especially when the notability is not established by repeated and independent sources). -
Userland12 (
talk)
12:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. PR and self-promotion are certainly valid concerns here, but I think this article just makes it over the GNG bar. I view the Forbes and VentureBeat sources more favorably than some of the other commentators above. The overall sourcing is not ideal, but I see it as just reliable and independent enough to meet our criteria.--Mojo Hand(
talk)14:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 it? GEOFEAT says this "Many artificial geographical features may be mentioned in plenty of reliable sources, but they may not necessarily be notable. The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability." I don't think this train station warrants a standalone article, if this is all the information there is on this station, one for the entire line will be more than fine.
Mopswade (
talk)
09:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep but only if someone adds a source. Failing that, redirect to the line, if the list of stations is supported by a source, or delete if not.
PamD11:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia: Sincan ile Ankara İstasyonu arasındaki demir yolu hattı 1892'de tamamlanmış ve hizmete açılmıştır. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devlet Demiryolları'ndan önce hatta çok az sayıda tren hizmet vermekteydi. Tren setleri buhar motorlu bir lokomotifin çektiği üç adet vagondan oluşmaktaydı. 1972'de elektriklendirilen hatta E23000 banliyö tren setleri hizmet vermektedir. 11 Temmuz 2016 tarihinde yenileme çalışmaları nedeniyle kısmen kapatılmıştır. 12 Nisan 2018'de tekrar hizmete girmiştir.
Rayhaber.com (the source currently in the article:) Sincan ile Ankara Garı arasındaki demiryolu hattı 1892’de tamamlanmış ve hizmete açılmıştır. TCDD’den önce hatta çok az sayıda tren hizmet vermekteydi. Tren setleri buhar motorlu bir lokomotifin çektiği üç adet vagondan oluşmaktaydı. 1972’de elektriklendirilen hatta E23000 banliyö tren setleri hizmet vermektedir. 11 Temmuz 2016 tarihinde yenileme çalışmaları nedeniyle kısmen kapatılmıştır. 12 Nisan 2018’de tekrar hizmete girmiştir.
Delete per the other related AfD, this also fails
WP:GNG, the article should be redirected to the line until it can be further developed. Still not sure where in
WP:GEOFEAT a train station is "automatically" notable.
SportingFlyerT·C19:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Yep. "Mamak Tren İstasyonu" brought up only directory sites, and the Turkish Wikipedia doesn't have an article, and most of the stations on that website are unsourced anyways.
SportingFlyerT·C19:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - Mainline commuter rail station of major city which WP:OUTCOMES demonstrate we always keep. It's absolutely impossible for such infrastructure to exist without extensive government reports, surveys, budgets and overall scrutiny by the public. Just a brief search in the Turkish language, which I don't speak a word of, shows the scope of this project.
[15][16] Such a station would never be considered for AfD in the US or UK. Might this be
systemic bias?
Oakshade (
talk)
15:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No evidence of notability. There is no meaningful content in this article that cannot be covered in the article of the corresponding author.
Mopswade (
talk)
08:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep per all the other vexatious and disruptive nominations by this blocked editor of Tagore’s works, all of which are discussed extensively in English-language critical literature.
Mccapra (
talk)
10:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Meets criteria 5 of
WP:NBOOK. Tagore is the first Asian recipient of a Nobel prize. He wrote the national anthems of not one but two countries (India and Bangladesh). This was one of his published works and earned him widespread acclaim. It has been reviewed and analysed in numbers books and journal articles.
Vinegarymass911 (
talk)
17:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Strong Delete Agree with nom, might be successful, but not notable. The two previous keep votes are not compelling. Being a CEO does not automatically make someone notable. In the second vote
Koridas presents two 'sources'. One is just a standard Bloomberg profile directory entry (which there are thousands of) the second is some obscure, unreliable site that put him on their "wall of fame". The site looks like it is some site for a convention? Either way nothing reliable about it, and being fully independent from the subject can't be confirmed. In my search on this subject, I only see
WP:ROUTINE coverage of hiring/firing stuff. No
WP:SIGCOV that would denote
WP:GNG or
WP:BIOSulfurboy (
talk)
20:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. CEOs are not necessarily notable4, but they should be considered notable--and generally are-- if the companies are as famous as this one.
Strong Delete CEO is not inherently notable, regardless of company size. Does not meet
WP:GNG as lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Sources cited by Koridas are business profiles, not significant coverage.
XVDC (
talk)
13:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per Sulfurboy. The sources presented above are especially unpersuasive, and while there's bits and pieces referring to him there's no substantive, non-
ROUTINE, independent secondary coverage that I found. Best, Kevin (aka
L235·t·c)
02:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment. My understanding is that neighborhoods are considered to pass
WP:GEOLAND as long as they are official, city-designated subdivisions. Can someone link me to some previous AfDs where articles for such neighborhoods were deleted or redirected? If this is accepted precedent, then a lot of neighborhood articles will need to be brought to AfD. –
Lord Bolingbroke (
talk)
13:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)reply
This applies to larger neighborhoods and broader districts of cities e.g.
Community areas in Chicago, not subdivisions and neighborhood associations for which there's not significant independent coverage of the areas. This is a housing development (
"developed by Al White") that has a homeowners association. While the city provides
a map of the HOAs, they are not officially city-designated and Stonelake Condos or Shaw Estates would not be notable either.
East Lansing, Michigan#Neighborhoods (or an overview subarticle if warranted) would be the appropriate place for this, not up to 25 articles on each. We've had quite a few housing developments at AFD recently (
1,
2,
3,
4,
5); though they've tended to be subdivisions not within a city, there's even less of a case for separate articles for incorporated ones since they fit more easily into a Neighborhoods section as here, without independent notability. Yes, there are indeed a lot of non-notable articles out there so redirects are a way to go when there's not significant independent coverage per GNG.
Reywas92Talk19:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 attempted to let this incubate in draftspace, but it was moved back out. Zero justification for a standalone stub article separate from its parent company
Sistema. Any coverage seems to be trivial or routine, per
WP:CORPDEPTH; mostly just shallow coverage of weapon contracts/announcements/releases that are akin to press releases. There's some very modest coverage in military blogs and sources with limited audience
WP:AUD. There is two Newsweek articles where the CEO is quoted, and other articles that parrot those quotes and then a national post article that gives a one line shoutout to them, but no real coverage of the company, at least nothing that would pass the rigorous standard of
WP:NCORP.
Sulfurboy (
talk)
00:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comedian and actress who fails WP:GNG and has not had multiple significant roles. There is one reference from an independent, reliable source (the ABQ article) but no others that I could find. Delete.
Citrivescence (
talk)
00:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Citrivescence You stated there is only one reference from an independent, reliable source. The New York Times is cited as well as Heavy.com and laughspin. Are these not reliable sources? --
DaJerm (
talk)
00:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)reply
@
DaJerm: I generally use
WP:RSP for consensus on reliability of sources, and there The Heavy is not considered reliable. The Times article does not provide in-depth, significant coverage about Lahna Turner.
Citrivescence (
talk)
03:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep: There is a fair amount of coverage of the subject, which I am poring over now, and the subject also won an award—though I'm not sure whether it is considered notable for the purposes of
WP:ANYBIO.
Dflaw4 (
talk)
03:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
According to her IMDb page, the subject won a DOC LA Award for her documentary, What's Eating Ralphie May. Here are a couple of the sources, although I think you already may have referred to one of them above:
She's also brought up in a lot of articles in respect of her late husband, Ralphie May. That being said, I don't think this level or quality of coverage would allow me to argue for anything more than a "Weak Keep".
Dflaw4 (
talk)
12:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 television pilot, lacks the significant coverage needed to meet long-term notability per
WP:GNG. All sources (including the ones presented at the last AfD) are simply reworded press releases, not independent of the subject, reporting verbatim casting news, attached crew, and the mere existence of this pilot's development – none provide significant coverage. Thousands of unaired broadcast network pilots exist, and this one is not unique enough to merit a standalone article. --
Wikipedical (
talk)
01:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep, has sources that reliably pass GNG. Independent means the source site is not related to the article's subject itself dibbydib (
T ・
C)07:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)reply
They are reliable sources, but they are separately repeating information from the same exact press releases, which is not independent of the subject. It's not significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Typically unaired pilots do not meet notability guidelines, since there are thousands of them. --
Wikipedical (
talk)
16:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. The sources all constitute
WP:ROUTINE coverage. There's no way this article passes
WP:10YT in my mind. Wikipedia isn't an
indiscriminate repository of information, and it would take a pretty unusual set of circumstances for me to think an unaired pilot is long-term notable. Best, Kevin (aka
L235·t·c)
02:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Sources are as noted above (several times) - rephrasing of the same press release material. This is not substantial independent coverage. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
18:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Doesn't meet
WP:GNG. The sole source provided in the article is essentially just a press release, and I was only able to find similar coverage online. Alternatives to deletion to consider include redirecting to
C. H. Greenblatt, the show's creator, or to
Yogi Bear, as both the show and the fictional location Jellystone Park are mentioned there. I think that I prefer to redirect to
Yogi Bear at this time. signed, Rosguilltalk02:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: This is a show premiering on HBO Max on May 27th, less than a month away. The early press coverage included The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline and Cartoon Brew; I've added references to the article. There will be more press coverage when the service debuts next month. I don't see the point of deleting the page after a week of AfD discussion and having to re-create it two or three weeks later. —
Toughpigs (
talk)
03:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Ack, I somehow didn't notice that the show hadn't premiered yet. I still disapprove that this article was created so far in advance of the release of a show, but agree that it's not worth bringing to AfD. signed, Rosguilltalk03:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
As per the clause - 1, a judge who has held an international, national or state level office in a country is presumed notable. Here, in this case the subject of the article has been an officer of the State Judicial Service throughout his service, till the age of 60 when he got appointed as the Judge of
Rajasthan High Court (A court of original(in some cases) and appellate jurisdiction). The court is second from top in the heirarchy of the court and is a higher court of jurisdiction, the first being the
Supreme Court of India.
Additionally, the total number of judges in the RHC is 28. The nomination of him was done by the
Chief Justice of India and appointment by the
President of India. More information and references regarding the same can be gathered by a simple google search of his name. That's all to be said in the matter.
MahakMaatiDi (
talk)
09:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 This is one of literally hundreds of articles sourced only to IMDb. In a discussion on another such article yesterday it was determined that IMDb had conflacted two different actresses into one article. Not everyone who ever had a credited role in a commercially released film production is notable, but that may even be a more strict criteria than IMDb uses. We need to stop being an IMDb mirror. This is a long standing problem, with many of these IMDb only sourced articles dating back well over a decade.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 student organisation.Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails
WP:GNG or
WP:ORG. Sources listed in the article doesn't pass
WP:RS & they just mentioned their name only (no substantial coverage). I did google search, apart from some passing mention, found nothing.
আফতাবুজ্জামান (
talk)
01:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 engineer. Being an engineer at Google doesn't give someone automatic notability. Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails
WP:GNG or
WP:ANYBIO. Sources listed in the article are primary (interview). I did google search but didn't find anything substantial.
আফতাবুজ্জামান (
talk)
01:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm not seeing coverage that adds up to GNG. Provided sources are either interviews (
[18],
[19]), affiliated (
[20],
[21],) otherwise don't look like reliable sources (
[22]), or don't have significant coverage of the subject (
[23],
[24]). I wasn't able to find more coverage online. signed, Rosguilltalk00:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sorry, NealeFamily, search results aren't the specific, reliable sources that we would need here. Sandstein 16:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - I was unable to find any significant coverage of this party and so this subject is not notable. It may be that notability is demonstrated if they receive more coverage during the 2020 election; if so this page can be recreated then and based on that new information.
HenryCrun15 (
talk)
19:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep as there is quite reasonable amount of coverage in National Media if you search under the Parties Chairperson. Enough to reach the required standard for notability albeit for a small political party.
NealeFamily (
talk)
10:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:ILLCON does not apply because they do not appear to be accused of illegal actions, just despicable ones. Recommend merging with
Kyle Chapman, founder of the group, because it's not clear the group is independently notable per
WP:NORG. buidhe09:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Sure, it exists;
if it exists, there is porn of it. But there is no significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources. The article's sources are 1) a fringe psychoanalytic case report on a man with various fetishes, including a glasses fetish. 2) a two-sentence dictionary definition. 3) two blog posts about "megane", a Japanese term for attractive anime characters with glasses. It's debatable whether "megane" is even the same thing as glasses fetishism - finding a trait attractive is not really the same as having a fetish for it.
A
WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing better, mainly passing mentions and random self-published websites. There's one case report on Pubmed from 1966
[1] - obviously not
WP:MEDRS, a couple sentences in a tabloid
[2], and some lightweight stuff about megane on Kotaku
[3]. Basically, all that RS has to say about this subject is that it's a fetish for glasses and it exists. That is not enough to justify an article.
SpicyMilkBoy (
talk)
23:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Found out that a man was recently jailed due to his uncontrolled glasses fetish, other than that the internet is silent on this fetish.
MistyGraceWhite (
talk)
11:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Independent notability for any character needs to be established to justify a separate article. For future reference, @
Franki3971:, see
Naruto Uzumaki and how that article is laid out, specifically how most of that article (or any featured article about a character) mostly contains real-world information about the character's creation, and their reception.--十八22:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Perhaps not, but the character does have a pretty extensive bio at the main page, so unless that is removed a redirect is probably the best choice.
Devonian Wombat (
talk)
21:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sole keep vote is arguing that notability is inherited from one actress; has not addressed the argument made against this. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)04:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - I would like the choice to be this one. While I did place some reception info the other day in order to get some improvement, this was
Daniella Monet's first starring role in a TV movie as the other known TV movies like the Fred movies she worked in had her in supporting roles. --
Rtkat3 (
talk)
14:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 I do not think that
WP:FRINGE really applies, at least not the way it usually does in physics-related AfD's (perpetual motion machines, etc.). The work was published in a
real journal. My concern is that it's simply
too soon — one very recent paper and a splash of press do not the basis for an article make. The Physics World item is just an interview with one of the authors — basically a press release in all but name, without any effort to even get the standard quote from an expert not involved in the work. New Scientist is
famously sensationalist; I wouldn't rely on their reporting to establish the notability of anything, though they're probably OK for supplementing material on a topic whose notability is already demonstrated. The Futurism (who?) source is just a pointer to the Physics World interview, with a few brief paragraphs of summary, so it's neither independent nor in-depth. (Amusingly, it also gets the title of the journal wrong: Physical Review of [sic] Letters.) The publicity people at Perimeter Institute earned their paychecks, but proposals like this appear all the time, and few of them go anywhere. This article is simply not warranted at the present time.
XOR'easter (
talk)
19:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete It's definitely not
WP:FRINGE, although I'm also skeptical that this idea will prove fruitful. In any case, it's not our job to judge scientific merit: it suffices to notice that there's no significant coverage in secondary sources (how could there be? the paper has just been published!). The coverage it received is pretty much only the announcement that the paper was published. Such coverage is nowadays routine for papers published by major institutes, if we would allow that to establish notability Wikipedia would have hundreds of articles about papers that got ignored by the scientific community. If this one makes an impact, then it will be the time to write an article about it. Not now.
Tercer (
talk)
20:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete – it is definitely
too soon, as noted above. The paper is available online, with the title "CPT-Symmetric Universe" (the title "Antiverse" for the article is a popularization). WP does not (and should not) include articles on a published proposal before the notability guidelines have been met, and these cannot be met until some secondary source reviews the topic. —
Quondum21:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep The discussion here seems to be about whether the subject of this article is true or not as part of science's description of nature.
I believe we should be talking about whether it is true that the anti-universe hypothesis is a serious topic for debate within the scientific community.
I contend that it is a genuine part of serious scientific debate. because it originates from a highly prestigious institution and has already made some experimental predictions that have been born out.
Wikipedia should be helping it's users who come across this debate for the first time with a brief introduction to its nature ,origin and the arguments on all sides. If the hypothesis is proved wrong then it will form part of the history of science and should be kept to help our readers understand how the debate went and the reasons the hypothesis was rejected.
We are not here talking about fringe or crank science. The encyclopedia is an educational tool often turned to when something new is experienced for the first time. It should reflect all sides of genuine debates in science as they occur.
Lumos3 (
talk)
Lumos3, I'm afraid you're missing the point. All three comments in favour of deletion argued about
WP:TOOSOON, not
WP:FRINGE. As I stated above, the paper is definitely not
WP:FRINGE, and I think the AfD nominator made a mistake in saying that it probably was.
Note that being true is not a criterion for deciding whether a scientific hypothesis should be covered in Wikipedia. We have, for example, an article on
Steady state cosmology. The criterion is notability, and the steady-state hypothesis is definitely notable, as it was debated by several serious scientists. The antiverse, on the other hand, hasn't been debated by anyone yet, simply because the paper has just been published. Perhaps it will inspire follow-up work by other authors, and so become part of the scientific debate. In this case it should be included in Wikipedia, but only after that happens. Now it's
WP:TOOSOON.
Tercer (
talk)
19:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Then surely a debate beginning at a well respected institution of science will be noteworthy , or will become noteworthy very soon. Are you suggesting we should delete this article and then reinstate it when the debate is more fully engaged? Isn't this just a bit bureaucratic? Wikipedia's prime purpose is to educate. As the debate progresses people new to it will come here to find a summary of what is going on, they will find nothing. We should note in the article the tentative nature of this hypothesis and that it is part of an ongoing debate , then record the debate as it happens and eventually any outcome.
Lumos3 (
talk)
14:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't be so sure. Plenty of papers published by major institutes fail to cause any impact. This policy is not pointless bureaucracy, it is there precisely because we shouldn't try to predict which papers will be taken seriously by the scientific community. There's no harm done in copying the current article to your userspace. If and when debate starts we can reinstate it, so that the readers can know what is going on. What we shouldn't have is an article about a non-existing debate.
Tercer (
talk)
15:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Then surely a debate beginning at a well respected institution of science will be noteworthy , or will become noteworthy very soon. There's certainly no guarantee that it will. Prestige of an institution has little to do with it, apart from their being able to afford more publicity.
XOR'easter (
talk)
00:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Gabungus
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Article about local charity that has been unsourced since 2007. Some sources suggested on talk page but nothing that strongly supports notability. In my view does not pass
WP:NCORP.
Mccapra (
talk)
18:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - I'm finding one bit of decent sized coverage in
The Mercury News, but that appears to be it. All other coverage appears to be only in local sources, or merely mentions of the charity with no further information. That single source would not allow this to pass the
WP:GNG.
Rorshacma (
talk)
15:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. The article has 0 refs. First page Google presence (which is considered to be the most reliable and followed) is on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Yelp, Subject's Website & Mercury News. Just one article (that too which is too less) certainly does not make notable.
Yourmasterishere (
talk)
13:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Promotional spam. I nominated it for G11, a brand new user contested the tag with their first edit. Entirely promotional, unsourced apart from directory listings - no indication of an NCORP pass.
GirthSummit (blether)17:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Just adding that an IP editor saw fit to blank this AfD discussion earlier. Someone is very eager to circumvent our editorial processes to retain this page.
GirthSummit (blether)19:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There's a fair amount of trivial and primary coverage of the subject, but I can't find any coverage that actually attempts to paint a biographical portrait or otherwise actually analyzes her life or work. I don't think that she meets
WP:GNG or
WP:NPOLITICIAN at the moment, and would suggest redirecting to
Best for Britain, the context that a majority of the currently cited sources refer to her in. A separate issue that I'm realizing now is that this isn't a great disambiguator; if kept or redirected the page should probably be retitled
Naomi Smith (politician). signed, Rosguilltalk17:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Independent notability for any character needs to be established to justify a separate article. For future reference, @
Franki3971:, see
Naruto Uzumaki and how that article is laid out, specifically how most of that article (or any featured article about a character) mostly contains real-world information about the character's creation, and their reception.--十八22:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Character is not notable at all. No significant, non-primary, non-trivial mentions for the subject. Kori (
@)03:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Pretty clear consensus to remove the article. Whether this should happen through a merge or a deletion isn't so clear, but there are unrebutted concerns about the sourcing that make the delete argument the stronger one.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
08:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Wikidata#Reception. The sources are either passing mentions or uses of the item as an example. There is no substantial analysis of the topic, thus it fails
WP:WEBCRIT. Probably deserves a mention on the Wikidata page, but a stand-alone article is silly.
SpicyMilkBoy (
talk)
19:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. I can't support merging as, unfortunately,
Wikidata is a very bad article (I count five independent sources cited, out of 41 citations—
WP:REFSPAM?), and this item doesn't strike me as particularly significant to the project's history. –
Arms & Hearts (
talk)
14:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 per nom. Searching for additional sources brings up nothing but additional mentions in plot summaries, and no kind of actual discussion or analysis. This could possibly be used as a Redirect to
Rogue Trooper, though personally I'd imagine people using this as a search term may actually be looking for information on
G.I. Joe (comics) instead.
Rorshacma (
talk)
15:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete as I agree that it's not a very searchable term on its own since it is so broad. It doesn't look to be viewed very often to redirect to Rogue Trooper, anyway (not zero, but not frequent):
last month,
last year. -
2pou (
talk)
18:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, article is sourced only to primary sources and described from an entirely in-universe point of view, and therefore it fails GNG and ALLPLOT. It is not a useful redirect, since anyone looking for this title would probably be more likely to be looking for information on G.I. Joe.
Devonian Wombat (
talk)
22:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
DELETE If the information isn't already in the main article you can merge it over, but this article needs to be deleted so people searching for G.I. Joe comic don't accidentally come here by mistake and get directed to the wrong place.
DreamFocus02:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Exactly. So far we have unanimous delete !votes (myself included), which I'm suggesting is the current trend: everyone !voting delete. However, that is only after one day, and things could potentially change over the course of another six days. If that trend were to swing, and we subsequently get 10 keep !votes that are convincing and potentially sway some existing delete !votes, possibly even improving the article a-la
WP:HEY, then that kept article should still probably be moved. Is that likely? Probably not, but you never know. Perhaps someone uncovers a number of print magazines or someone uncovers a number of publications they studied in college... Likelihood? One in a million...?
"So you're telling me there's a chance..." GAHAHAHA!!! *sigh* ... Hahaha! ha... ha... Classic. -
2pou (
talk)
17:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Other than vapid celebrity gossip (ie. Look what this hunky guy got his supermodel wife as a push gift!) there is no coverage of Khalife or his company.
Praxidicae (
talk)
14:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Week Keep, the sources provided include numerous business mags which show that the jeweller has significant coverage online which make it passable for gng. The tone could also be changed as well.
Mr. Apollo (
talk to me bebe) 01:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)sock strike
Praxidicae (
talk)
14:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, the sources mostly look like tabloid promo nonsense to me, maybe with a few scattered industry magazines, but I don't think those altogether look like enough either.
67.243.20.177 (
talk)
01:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 page should be deleted owing to reason that it is not at all important to have it. The duo it is talking have their separate biographical pages
Hira Mani and
Mani (actor). Thus the said husband wife duo page is useless and not making any sense, so it should be deleted.
USaamo (
talk·contribs) (uSaamo
14:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC))reply
Delete no reason to have this article when we have articles on the two people in this couple. They are not a performing group. I have no opinion on weather we should merge their articles, but we should not have 3 articles, only 2 or maybe 1 (although I suspect 2, but that is an issue for another day).
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
non notable youtuber, the sources are largely unreliable or small time, super local papers or a less read equivalent of bored panda (which is definitely not reliable.)
Praxidicae (
talk)
12:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 - Article is a gigantic bag of promotional, unsourced, trivial, unnecessary content. Kori (
@)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 person, there is no meaningful coverage of her in english or arabic, her pageant placement isn't notable as the pageant itself isn't notable and the only content about her anywhere else is gossipy nonsense about her posing naked.
Praxidicae (
talk)
11:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete I can't found any Arabic reliable source about her, and all Arabic coverage is meaningful related to unreliable websites. Also, I can't found anything about that she won "Queen of the Universe Pageant" on 2013! About enwiki sources: 1=general link for queenuniversepageant.com, 2 (same as 8), 5/7/10/11/15 not work, 5 (same as 10), 7 (same as 11), 6/16 her own account, 12/13 unreliable talking about "Miss expo"(???), 14 TedX. So non-notable from what I found --Alaa:)..!12:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 artist - I can't find any sources that cover her in depth and the few mentions I can find in reputable sources aren't even about her.
Praxidicae (
talk)
11:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. I looked for significant sources and found one brief interview from a source I'm not confident is reliable. I did add it to the article, though it adds next to nothing.
DiamondRemley39 (
talk)
12:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 person/creative professional, no coverage in reliable sources, mostly sourced to black hat SEO sites masquerading as legitimate outlets.
Praxidicae (
talk)
10:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. I hesitated to nominate this for deletion due to the Maxim coverage, but I see now that it is marked as an article sponsored by an advertising company. – Thjarkur(talk)20:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Per
WP:LISTPEOPLE - The list of finalists is already available on the show's article. Most names do not satisfy the WP:BLP requirements thus do not have inherited notability. There is no need for such low level profiling on a separate list. Of the seven seasons of this show, only season 1 has a spinoff like this. Also various other articles relating to the Voice TV series in other countries have also been deleted:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Voice of Ireland finalists (series 1)Ajf773 (
talk)
09:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 this is, like many others, just PR spam from unreliable sources (the outlets cited may have legitimate uses but these specific publications are undeclared press releases pushed by agents.)
Praxidicae (
talk)
10:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The GNIS spot is off a bit to the west; looking back into old topos and aerials, the actual spot is a building on the south side of an orchard. Searching seems to show that this building houses a pumping station for an oil pipeline. At any rate all evidence is that there was never a settlement here, and the pumping station doesn't seem notable.
Mangoe (
talk)
02:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak keep In addition to the evidence SportingFlyer found, there's evidence of the name's continued use; see
here (referring to utility work in the area) and
here (referring to a nearby overcrossing). The one thing that gives me pause is that we only have one piece of evidence that anyone lived here, and that's the stated home of a person in an out-of-town yacht race; if that's somehow a mistake, then this looks a lot more like a locale than a populated place. I'll take the source at its word, but I'd really like to find more evidence of habitation here.
TheCatalyst31Reaction•
Creation22:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Newspaper coverage is almost entirely within the context of the pipeline. There's no indication that this was actually a settlement beyond the single "someone lived there" reference, and it certainly doesn't have enough significant coverage to meet GNG. –
dlthewave☎03:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
comment Being an "actual location" is of course not a claim to notability, and we are (as usual) foundering on that issue and falling back on the claim to be a community. But the best anyone seems to be doing, it seems to me, is that the pumping station is used as a reference point of a locale. There's just no discussion of the place as a community, much less as one officially established.
Mangoe (
talk)
17:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The subject of this article fails
WP:GNG and
WP:MUSICBIO. None of the references cited in the article discuss him. As a matter, all of them are promotional links to the subject's music. A Google search of the subject doesn't bring up coverage in reliable sources. The award he is a recipient of is not notable. This
lengthy review is from an unreliable source. None of the subject's albums or singles have been critically reviewed.
Versace1608Wanna Talk?23:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Hi, kindly note ghanacelebrities is a notable site in Ghana which writes about celebrities and lifestyle. With the awards, WMA is a major award in Ghana hence the musician passes for GNG
Kwamevaughan (
talk)
14:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Kwamevaughan: Ghanacelebrities is not a reliable source; the website does not have an editorial oversight. Per
this page, they promote artists and the artists' music on their site and on social media for a maximum fee of GH₵ 4700 ($1000 US dollars). Ghanacelebrities also offers advertising services. With regards to the Western Music Awards, a Google search of the ceremony doesn't show it having in-depth coverage. I was only able to find is announcements about previous editions.
Versace1608Wanna Talk?15:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)reply
—- @
User:Versace1608 , the awards ceremony is relatively new as compared to other awards such as vgma and its in the same league as 4syte music awards and 3music awards.
Kwamevaughan (
talk)
@
Kwamevaughan: First you said WMA is a major award in Ghana and after I challenged that assertion, you claimed it is "relatively new". I don't know what your definition of "relatively new" is, but I do not consider any awards ceremony with three previous editions held new. As it currently stands, there aren't any in-depth coverage of WMA available online. If you're going to keep your position, you will need to provide in-depth coverage to support it.
Versace1608Wanna Talk?17:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - User has made many articles similar to this one, none of them have any notability due to lack of reliable sourcing.
🌺Kori🌺 - (
@)
17:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep The 2014 election is notable by being the first time a Latina was elected in its city's history. Likely additional sources are available. --
Enos733 (
talk)
16:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete It is not the primary city in its metro area, so it really does not warrant separate articles for each election. The mayor of Chula Vista is rarely mentioned in media outside of California, so it's unlikely that such a race would be covered with original reporting (not the reprinted wire feeds as shown above). SounderBruce04:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep the nature of the election, the issues raised and the broad range of coverage received for the election (as listed in the article and as described above) satisfies
WP:NEVENT. There are huge numbers of election articles that should be deleted; this isn't one of them.
Alansohn (
talk)
19:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete we do not need articles for every local election that occurs globally and this local election was only locally notable. Some mayoral elections will receive greater than local notability and those can be kept. The Baltimore Sun and NY Daily News are not actually national coverage - those articles were clearly written by local San Diego journalists and were re-run on those websites, possibly as part of an affiliate program - we've seen this before with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution hosting online local content written elsewhere and for a different community. At best this should be merged into a "Mayor of Chula Vista" article.
SportingFlyerT·C20:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)reply
San Diego paper is "regional", not "local". It was an editorial decision by two major East Coast newspapers to print news they found to be significant and national. There's no need to speculate about the other stuff.
Djflem (
talk)
10:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Topics do not become more notable just because some newspapers outside the local coverage area happened to make an "editorial decision" to reaggregate a bit of wire service coverage originating in the topic's own local area. For either the Baltimore Sun or the NY Daily News to count as notability-bolstering coverage on "nationalizing" grounds, those papers would have to have sent their own journalists to Chula Vista to generate original coverage that existed separately from the wire-serviced local stuff.
Bearcat (
talk)
13:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Was the news of the election carried in two East Coast newspapers? Yes. Is standard "papers would have to have sent their own journalists"..."to generate original coverage" stated anywhere in Wikipedia? Please provide link.
Djflem (
talk)
02:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
It wasn't actually carried in two East Coast newspapers, which is the issue - we're not applying an arbitrary standard here because we don't like it. A Newspapers.com search for the Baltimore Sun shows this article was not printed. The sources you found were Tribune wire articles, written in San Diego, and added to a database that most Tribune websites pull from. For instance,
[7] or
[8] - notice how the sd-se-chula-vista-mayor-election-20181012-story.html is the same in all of those? The article hasn't actually been printed in any those newspapers, they're just Tribune Publishing newspapers, it takes the story and wraps it in that newspaper's outline. As an example, I randomly clicked on
[9], currently in the news, and changed the URL to
[10] and bam, the story comes up. Clicking the Chula Vista tag or the author's name in any of the articles doesn't bring anything up, further proof it wasn't actually of interest to anyone on the east coast.
SportingFlyerT·C04:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your response. That "papers would have to have sent their own journalists" and "to generate original coverage" was the claim I was curious about.
Djflem (
talk)
19:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete While I appreciate the effort to make Wikipedia a useful source, Wikipedia is not a news website. Maybe election records could be kept for larger cities, but as some users pointed out above, Chula Vista isn't a particularly large city. To users pointing out this was an important election - perhaps add a stub tag and start adding content about why this was important. I haven't heard anything about these elections on my local news. WallabyWombat❯❯❯Let's Talk!09:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge in a very limited form to
Chula_Vista,_California#Government. A regular election in a mid-size city cannot satisfy
WP:NEVENT and the coverage demonstrated is not significant. "The first X elected to Office in Place"-type articles are only notable if the office in that place is already notable and Mayor of the 76th-largest city is not automatically notable.
Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)04:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:BLP of a graffiti artist, not
properly referenced as passing
WP:NARTIST. The sources here are a neighbourhood
hyperlocal and a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person on a local interest
blog, which are not notability-clinching sources in and of themselves if they're the best references you can find -- but nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to show more than just two pieces of local interest coverage.
Bearcat (
talk)
05:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Every claim in the article is now reliably sourced. He appears to be very notable.
The New York Times had this to say about him on January 29,2020: The Los Angeles-based artist Tristan Eaton has been painting mostly with spray cans since his teenage hit-and-run graffiti attacks in Detroit and New York. But he designed the Super Bowl tickets and game program on his computer, wrapping a century of N.F.L. highlights around a gleaming Lombardi Trophy. The look and the spirit of street art is there,” he said. “The computer is just another tool.” Mr. Eaton, 41, went back to spray cans to turn a 9-foot tall, fiberglass model of the Lombardi into a dazzling collage of aquas, pinks, purples, oranges and greens, art deco, palm trees and N.F.L. milestones. It will be outside the stadium as fans arrive on game day.
An October 2019 New York Times article said "The women in Tristan Eaton’s mural are striking, strong, steady in their gaze. They project power. Their silver and blue complexions, the red accents and the white stars streaming across them, shout authority. He grew up in Detroit and New York, now lives in Los Angeles. “I’m cheering the idea of women having a greater voice and an equal seat at the table,” Mr. Eaton said. “Sometimes seeing imagery like this can solidify people’s viewpoints and they realize they’re not alone.”ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
18:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Only if other sources independently wrote about his authorship of a chapter in a book to contextualize the importance of that work, and not if you simply use that work as circular sourcing for its own existence as a work.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Coolabahapple: I found "The Art of Spray Paint" book you mentioned. The book is by Lori Zimmer, not Eaton. So it is about him, not by him. There is a three-page profile on him on pages 78-81. Example text: "These cultural conglomerations have become Eaton’s calling card, permeating his commercial, gallery, and mural work, which has reinvented architectural facades in cities across the globe. Eaton’s work has a discern- able dynamism and complexity that has consistently attracted commercial clients, especially lifestyle and fashion labels seeking to expand their brand with art. The artist’s ability to mash up elements from a brand’s identity into gorgeous murals is as alluring to his clients as their size. His murals often sprawl to expansive sizes, sometimes upward of 20 feet (6 m) and more, meshing art and branding, and have a much greater effect than any billboard ever could. Much like artist Shepard Fairey, Eaton’s style transcends the genre and bleeds into commercial work, attracting clients for not only his skill set, but also his vision and brand understanding."ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
15:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Johnpacklambert, Did you actually read the article? The subject is not used as a self-published source anywhere. It is full of independent sources that talk about his work, as well as the NYTimes above.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
20:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Above people are trying to cite the fact he wrote a chapter in a book as a sign of notability. A chapter is a book is not a sign of notability, since you wrote the work.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Note that the Google Books overview page
here denotes Eaton as a "Contributor" (select the "More about this edition" to expand the box). It is unclear to what extent Eaton contributed toward the book, though, because I cannot access the content about him in Google Books at this time, for example, to see if the content is attributed to him. North America100003:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Being in the collection of MOMA is almost sufficient by itself towards passing the notability bar, but in addition the article is well sourced.
Curiocurio (
talk)
19:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep – Per a source review, the subject meets
WP:BASIC. Some of the articles contain interview content, but also contain non-interview content that discuss the subject and his works in significant detail. North America100003:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Instagram figure, no coverage (some of the sources in Farsi is about university result announcement ), no reviews, fails GNG, I did a thorough research about her and couldn't find anything showing her notability. It should be speedy deleted
Mardetanha (
talk)
11:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Enough reliable resources mentioned her and this is a criteria for notability. Although her notability isn't as much as great and famous actors and presenters. I suggest that speedy deletion tag changes to refimprove tag. I suggest that you take a look at her Instagram profile. 860K followers is big enough to name her an influencer.
MrInfo2012 Talk 21:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Having Xk followers is not criteria for notability, I couldn't find single source about her biography. only some poor metions in Iranian tabloids
Mardetanha (
talk)
16:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Not notable at all. Deleted 3 times in fawiki. You can't find any reliable source about this person. One of the references is a personal blog about his PhD test result!
ARASH PT talk 16:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. From what I understand from the sources, none of the ones (other than potentially, and probably not, the Gilan Media video) constitute actual substantive (non-trivial) coverage in reliable secondary sources. Even if the Gilan Media video was a good source (which I doubt based on the quality of the other sources) it wouldn't be nearly enough. The fawiki deletions, from people who know the language and the sources better, are also indicative of Nikrah's lack of notability. Best, Kevin (aka
L235·t·c)
02:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and Arash.pt. A search on her name in Persian shows no important results. Clearly non notable even locally.
Diderotd (
talk)
07:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 musical band having no in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Each member of the group is non notable & references provided are not reliable sources as they have no reputation for fact checking & lack editorial oversight. They also do not satisfy
WP:SINGER.
Celestina007 (
talk)
13:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - The group doesn't appear notable. I agree. This is a great example to illustrate the principle that "well-known doesn't necessarily mean notable" since we have all kinds of sources about the band, but none of them that I've seen appear particularly reliable.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
19:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - The band satisfies notability requirements in
WP:SINGER on at least points 1, 4 and 5. The easiest one to document is 5: Frozen Crown have released two albums on
Scarlet Records[1] which comfortably satisfies the requirements for a "more important independent label": the label was founded in 1998, and its own article lists 16 other current artists notable enough to have their own pages as well as more than 30 former artists that do so. I could make a case for the other points, but I don't believe that discussion would be very productive, as notability should now be established and I would prefer to use my time improving this and other articles. As the original contributor of the article, I do take the point that the first version could be better sourced and will work to address that.
Laanders (
talk)
09:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - I feel that a band with over 13 million views on Scarlet Records is probably more than "well known", they have physical media available and are obviously a successful band — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
87.75.94.117 (
talk)
01:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 as passes
WP:NMUSIC criteria 2 (only one criteria needed) with charting releases on the Korean national music charts, namely one album and five singles as confirmed by the references in the article. Also, the awards he won and was nominated for are notable awards, but its the charting that clinches it, imv
Atlantic306 (
talk)
23:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Users paid to edit arguing to keep are generally given less weight then users without skin in the game. Obvious meatpuppets need to be policy based to have any impact in the outcome.
SpartazHumbug!22:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I believe that the 5 sources in the Reference section of the original article should be sufficient for an article of this type. Additionally any show at a permanent well known gallery should serve as additional proof of notability.
Slipandslide (
talk)
12:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Jooojay:Art shows at well known galleries, not owned or controlled by the artist should always be considered when applying GNG to artists. To state otherwise is to ignore common sense.
Slipandslide (
talk)
20:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Where you exhibit is not specifically mentioned in WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST, which only mentions shows at siginficant venues like the Venice Biennale. You could show at lots of well-known galleries and never get a review, and thus not be notable as there would be no coverage.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
12:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I see many new citations were added today to this article, however they don't seem like they are reliable sources (see
WP:RS). A lot of gallery PR publications.
Jooojay (
talk)
21:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Bmore is not a national publication, and the ArtDaily link appears to be an ad for the "Haines Gallery". The majority of your new edits today are not done with inline citations and as of now appears to be original research, I don't see you demonstrating any notability or strengthening your argument yet.
Jooojay (
talk)
22:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Slipandslide: Ohhhhhhhhhh, I see. Please then describe which part of the special notability guideline
WP:ARTIST is met by this artist? Looking forward to your answer and learning something new, as there is always time for learning!
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
21:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I've tagged the article as undisclosed paid editing, since Slipandslide
just told me this is a paid editing gig, but I do not see it mentioned on this AFD page, nor on the article talk page or on their user page.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
22:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
ThatMontrealIP:I also told you that I had disclosed the contribution on my User Talk page by adding the required template there. My understanding from Paid-contribution_disclosure is that the disclosure may be made in any of 3 places including the User|Talk page. Therefore I will ask you to remove that template.
Slipandslide (
talk)
00:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
It makes sense that it was made by a paid editor. The template should stay on the article for now, and the article (if it's not deleted) needs deep clean up per
WP:CONPOL. Also this maybe a COI situation, per
WP:PAID.
Jooojay (
talk)
01:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
CommentI am the director of exhibitions at the Southeastern Center of Contemporary Art (SECCA). Many, now well known, artists have been featured in exhibitions at SECCA. Taha Heydari is one such artist. We feel that his work measures up to the other artists who have come before him and we see Heydari as a strong voice for for Iranian artists living in exile. KEEP Signed CDossel— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Cdossel (
talk •
contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
promotional and non-notable. Probable paid editor rsponsible for a number of similar articles. The references look impressive, but they do not hold up: they are promotional interviews where the person speaks whatever he pleases--as can be seen from the titles and confirmed by looking at the text, some of them duplicate.
The various annual "OKAYAfrica's 100 Women" and "Forbes 30 under 30" and similar awards are promotional gimmicks, and do not lead to notability . Even the WorldBank Live page was clearly written by her own publicist. Unlike some other people written about by this editor, there is a possibility that she might become notable, in which case there will be no need for her to pay for an article, for a volunteer will know about her and write a proper article. DGG (
talk ) 23:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC) DGG (
talk )
06:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. The subject has co-founded several non-notable businesses. Some of her awards and recognition do appear to be valid. However, these accolades are not enough to warrant a separate article at this time. She fails
WP:GNG and it is
WP:TOOSOON for her to have a separate article.
Versace1608Wanna Talk?14:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep I have removed promotional content and added more reliable sources. The subject of this article have significant coverage in a good number of secondary sources. She passes
WP:GNG,
WP:NEXIST and
WP:NRV applied.
Kojomo (
talk)
19:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 I tagged this for speedy deletion because I can't find any independent sourcing or even local news coverage. Best,
GPL93 (
talk)
12:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. There is a narrow but policy-supported consensus that the sources provided do not suffice to support notability for this subject. No prejudice against restoring to draft if further improvements can be made to overcome these objections.
BD2412T01:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Non-notable person, Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, even the mentioned company is not on Wikipedia.
The business person is only locally "known", the Stanford link is a generic set of interviews done in Estonia to record and archive local lives of locals (notable and non-notable people).
One startup person among dozens of thousands.
Article wrote by only one editor with an excessive promoting tone.
Userland12 (
talk)
15:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)reply
She is the youngest Estonian female millionaire and definitely notable enough for English Wikipedia. There is nothing do debate about. Anyone who claims something else has not looked into the topic.
Ivo (
talk)
16:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. I cannot fully access the sources, as most of them are in Estonian. But I just wanted to note that the Forbes article linked above by
Pelmeen10 is a "contributor article" which is more like a blog than a magazine article; it does not suffice for notability.
BenKuykendall (
talk)
07:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Not only it fails
WP:PROMOTION but also fails
WP:GNG. "Millionaire" is not enough to describe notability. According to
List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_millionaires there are 10'000 millionaires in the country of the subject. Let's be honest, the company is nothing special (there are much bigger and notable companies that are not on Wikipedia). A local wood factory in Siberia can easily earn 1 million USD and may even have interviews in local newspapers or mentions in international websites but it doesn't mean it's worth for inclusion so the argument of money is pointless. The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity. On the outside sources, what we can see is PR organized by the subject's own company. Yes money can buy that, and you can pay to get articles written for you, but it doesn't make you notable. It's very visible by the promotional tone. For example the main source of the Wikipedia article is "Estonian World (press release) (blog)-Oct 27, 2016". No offense if but an article based on press releases and promotional interviews and guests posts, well that's PR and marketing, not encyclopedia content and therefore should be deleted if we don't want Wikipedia to become a PR garbage (especially when the notability is not established by repeated and independent sources). -
Userland12 (
talk)
12:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. PR and self-promotion are certainly valid concerns here, but I think this article just makes it over the GNG bar. I view the Forbes and VentureBeat sources more favorably than some of the other commentators above. The overall sourcing is not ideal, but I see it as just reliable and independent enough to meet our criteria.--Mojo Hand(
talk)14:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 it? GEOFEAT says this "Many artificial geographical features may be mentioned in plenty of reliable sources, but they may not necessarily be notable. The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability." I don't think this train station warrants a standalone article, if this is all the information there is on this station, one for the entire line will be more than fine.
Mopswade (
talk)
09:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep but only if someone adds a source. Failing that, redirect to the line, if the list of stations is supported by a source, or delete if not.
PamD11:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia: Sincan ile Ankara İstasyonu arasındaki demir yolu hattı 1892'de tamamlanmış ve hizmete açılmıştır. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devlet Demiryolları'ndan önce hatta çok az sayıda tren hizmet vermekteydi. Tren setleri buhar motorlu bir lokomotifin çektiği üç adet vagondan oluşmaktaydı. 1972'de elektriklendirilen hatta E23000 banliyö tren setleri hizmet vermektedir. 11 Temmuz 2016 tarihinde yenileme çalışmaları nedeniyle kısmen kapatılmıştır. 12 Nisan 2018'de tekrar hizmete girmiştir.
Rayhaber.com (the source currently in the article:) Sincan ile Ankara Garı arasındaki demiryolu hattı 1892’de tamamlanmış ve hizmete açılmıştır. TCDD’den önce hatta çok az sayıda tren hizmet vermekteydi. Tren setleri buhar motorlu bir lokomotifin çektiği üç adet vagondan oluşmaktaydı. 1972’de elektriklendirilen hatta E23000 banliyö tren setleri hizmet vermektedir. 11 Temmuz 2016 tarihinde yenileme çalışmaları nedeniyle kısmen kapatılmıştır. 12 Nisan 2018’de tekrar hizmete girmiştir.
Delete per the other related AfD, this also fails
WP:GNG, the article should be redirected to the line until it can be further developed. Still not sure where in
WP:GEOFEAT a train station is "automatically" notable.
SportingFlyerT·C19:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Yep. "Mamak Tren İstasyonu" brought up only directory sites, and the Turkish Wikipedia doesn't have an article, and most of the stations on that website are unsourced anyways.
SportingFlyerT·C19:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - Mainline commuter rail station of major city which WP:OUTCOMES demonstrate we always keep. It's absolutely impossible for such infrastructure to exist without extensive government reports, surveys, budgets and overall scrutiny by the public. Just a brief search in the Turkish language, which I don't speak a word of, shows the scope of this project.
[15][16] Such a station would never be considered for AfD in the US or UK. Might this be
systemic bias?
Oakshade (
talk)
15:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No evidence of notability. There is no meaningful content in this article that cannot be covered in the article of the corresponding author.
Mopswade (
talk)
08:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep per all the other vexatious and disruptive nominations by this blocked editor of Tagore’s works, all of which are discussed extensively in English-language critical literature.
Mccapra (
talk)
10:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Meets criteria 5 of
WP:NBOOK. Tagore is the first Asian recipient of a Nobel prize. He wrote the national anthems of not one but two countries (India and Bangladesh). This was one of his published works and earned him widespread acclaim. It has been reviewed and analysed in numbers books and journal articles.
Vinegarymass911 (
talk)
17:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Strong Delete Agree with nom, might be successful, but not notable. The two previous keep votes are not compelling. Being a CEO does not automatically make someone notable. In the second vote
Koridas presents two 'sources'. One is just a standard Bloomberg profile directory entry (which there are thousands of) the second is some obscure, unreliable site that put him on their "wall of fame". The site looks like it is some site for a convention? Either way nothing reliable about it, and being fully independent from the subject can't be confirmed. In my search on this subject, I only see
WP:ROUTINE coverage of hiring/firing stuff. No
WP:SIGCOV that would denote
WP:GNG or
WP:BIOSulfurboy (
talk)
20:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. CEOs are not necessarily notable4, but they should be considered notable--and generally are-- if the companies are as famous as this one.
Strong Delete CEO is not inherently notable, regardless of company size. Does not meet
WP:GNG as lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Sources cited by Koridas are business profiles, not significant coverage.
XVDC (
talk)
13:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per Sulfurboy. The sources presented above are especially unpersuasive, and while there's bits and pieces referring to him there's no substantive, non-
ROUTINE, independent secondary coverage that I found. Best, Kevin (aka
L235·t·c)
02:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment. My understanding is that neighborhoods are considered to pass
WP:GEOLAND as long as they are official, city-designated subdivisions. Can someone link me to some previous AfDs where articles for such neighborhoods were deleted or redirected? If this is accepted precedent, then a lot of neighborhood articles will need to be brought to AfD. –
Lord Bolingbroke (
talk)
13:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)reply
This applies to larger neighborhoods and broader districts of cities e.g.
Community areas in Chicago, not subdivisions and neighborhood associations for which there's not significant independent coverage of the areas. This is a housing development (
"developed by Al White") that has a homeowners association. While the city provides
a map of the HOAs, they are not officially city-designated and Stonelake Condos or Shaw Estates would not be notable either.
East Lansing, Michigan#Neighborhoods (or an overview subarticle if warranted) would be the appropriate place for this, not up to 25 articles on each. We've had quite a few housing developments at AFD recently (
1,
2,
3,
4,
5); though they've tended to be subdivisions not within a city, there's even less of a case for separate articles for incorporated ones since they fit more easily into a Neighborhoods section as here, without independent notability. Yes, there are indeed a lot of non-notable articles out there so redirects are a way to go when there's not significant independent coverage per GNG.
Reywas92Talk19:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 attempted to let this incubate in draftspace, but it was moved back out. Zero justification for a standalone stub article separate from its parent company
Sistema. Any coverage seems to be trivial or routine, per
WP:CORPDEPTH; mostly just shallow coverage of weapon contracts/announcements/releases that are akin to press releases. There's some very modest coverage in military blogs and sources with limited audience
WP:AUD. There is two Newsweek articles where the CEO is quoted, and other articles that parrot those quotes and then a national post article that gives a one line shoutout to them, but no real coverage of the company, at least nothing that would pass the rigorous standard of
WP:NCORP.
Sulfurboy (
talk)
00:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comedian and actress who fails WP:GNG and has not had multiple significant roles. There is one reference from an independent, reliable source (the ABQ article) but no others that I could find. Delete.
Citrivescence (
talk)
00:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Citrivescence You stated there is only one reference from an independent, reliable source. The New York Times is cited as well as Heavy.com and laughspin. Are these not reliable sources? --
DaJerm (
talk)
00:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)reply
@
DaJerm: I generally use
WP:RSP for consensus on reliability of sources, and there The Heavy is not considered reliable. The Times article does not provide in-depth, significant coverage about Lahna Turner.
Citrivescence (
talk)
03:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep: There is a fair amount of coverage of the subject, which I am poring over now, and the subject also won an award—though I'm not sure whether it is considered notable for the purposes of
WP:ANYBIO.
Dflaw4 (
talk)
03:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
According to her IMDb page, the subject won a DOC LA Award for her documentary, What's Eating Ralphie May. Here are a couple of the sources, although I think you already may have referred to one of them above:
She's also brought up in a lot of articles in respect of her late husband, Ralphie May. That being said, I don't think this level or quality of coverage would allow me to argue for anything more than a "Weak Keep".
Dflaw4 (
talk)
12:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 television pilot, lacks the significant coverage needed to meet long-term notability per
WP:GNG. All sources (including the ones presented at the last AfD) are simply reworded press releases, not independent of the subject, reporting verbatim casting news, attached crew, and the mere existence of this pilot's development – none provide significant coverage. Thousands of unaired broadcast network pilots exist, and this one is not unique enough to merit a standalone article. --
Wikipedical (
talk)
01:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep, has sources that reliably pass GNG. Independent means the source site is not related to the article's subject itself dibbydib (
T ・
C)07:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)reply
They are reliable sources, but they are separately repeating information from the same exact press releases, which is not independent of the subject. It's not significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Typically unaired pilots do not meet notability guidelines, since there are thousands of them. --
Wikipedical (
talk)
16:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. The sources all constitute
WP:ROUTINE coverage. There's no way this article passes
WP:10YT in my mind. Wikipedia isn't an
indiscriminate repository of information, and it would take a pretty unusual set of circumstances for me to think an unaired pilot is long-term notable. Best, Kevin (aka
L235·t·c)
02:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Sources are as noted above (several times) - rephrasing of the same press release material. This is not substantial independent coverage. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
18:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Doesn't meet
WP:GNG. The sole source provided in the article is essentially just a press release, and I was only able to find similar coverage online. Alternatives to deletion to consider include redirecting to
C. H. Greenblatt, the show's creator, or to
Yogi Bear, as both the show and the fictional location Jellystone Park are mentioned there. I think that I prefer to redirect to
Yogi Bear at this time. signed, Rosguilltalk02:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: This is a show premiering on HBO Max on May 27th, less than a month away. The early press coverage included The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline and Cartoon Brew; I've added references to the article. There will be more press coverage when the service debuts next month. I don't see the point of deleting the page after a week of AfD discussion and having to re-create it two or three weeks later. —
Toughpigs (
talk)
03:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Ack, I somehow didn't notice that the show hadn't premiered yet. I still disapprove that this article was created so far in advance of the release of a show, but agree that it's not worth bringing to AfD. signed, Rosguilltalk03:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
As per the clause - 1, a judge who has held an international, national or state level office in a country is presumed notable. Here, in this case the subject of the article has been an officer of the State Judicial Service throughout his service, till the age of 60 when he got appointed as the Judge of
Rajasthan High Court (A court of original(in some cases) and appellate jurisdiction). The court is second from top in the heirarchy of the court and is a higher court of jurisdiction, the first being the
Supreme Court of India.
Additionally, the total number of judges in the RHC is 28. The nomination of him was done by the
Chief Justice of India and appointment by the
President of India. More information and references regarding the same can be gathered by a simple google search of his name. That's all to be said in the matter.
MahakMaatiDi (
talk)
09:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 This is one of literally hundreds of articles sourced only to IMDb. In a discussion on another such article yesterday it was determined that IMDb had conflacted two different actresses into one article. Not everyone who ever had a credited role in a commercially released film production is notable, but that may even be a more strict criteria than IMDb uses. We need to stop being an IMDb mirror. This is a long standing problem, with many of these IMDb only sourced articles dating back well over a decade.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 student organisation.Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails
WP:GNG or
WP:ORG. Sources listed in the article doesn't pass
WP:RS & they just mentioned their name only (no substantial coverage). I did google search, apart from some passing mention, found nothing.
আফতাবুজ্জামান (
talk)
01:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 engineer. Being an engineer at Google doesn't give someone automatic notability. Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails
WP:GNG or
WP:ANYBIO. Sources listed in the article are primary (interview). I did google search but didn't find anything substantial.
আফতাবুজ্জামান (
talk)
01:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm not seeing coverage that adds up to GNG. Provided sources are either interviews (
[18],
[19]), affiliated (
[20],
[21],) otherwise don't look like reliable sources (
[22]), or don't have significant coverage of the subject (
[23],
[24]). I wasn't able to find more coverage online. signed, Rosguilltalk00:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sorry, NealeFamily, search results aren't the specific, reliable sources that we would need here. Sandstein 16:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - I was unable to find any significant coverage of this party and so this subject is not notable. It may be that notability is demonstrated if they receive more coverage during the 2020 election; if so this page can be recreated then and based on that new information.
HenryCrun15 (
talk)
19:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep as there is quite reasonable amount of coverage in National Media if you search under the Parties Chairperson. Enough to reach the required standard for notability albeit for a small political party.
NealeFamily (
talk)
10:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:ILLCON does not apply because they do not appear to be accused of illegal actions, just despicable ones. Recommend merging with
Kyle Chapman, founder of the group, because it's not clear the group is independently notable per
WP:NORG. buidhe09:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.