The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Neutral: I'll try to be neutral here. I don't think media coverage tends to be promotional here. Pulse Nigeria and PN News Nigeria are independent media sources. WP:TOOSOON may apply however.
Lunar Clock (
talk)
05:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment from Nominator - I won't
bludgeon the process, but the voters above have missed an important point. The sources mentioning Mr. Arole, including those already in the article, may very well be reliable sources in themselves. However, they have all mentioned him in very brief and introductory ways, pretty much simply announcing that he
exists with no further in-depth analysis of anything he may have accomplished. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)13:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Doomsdayer520 I don’t even know why I bother with this AFD as I’m not even the author of the article but in the spirit of fairness imho he does qualify. Can you not see how subject of article qualifies for inclusion under #1 & #2 of
WP:ENT ??
Celestina007 (
talk)
00:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)reply
If you don't think you should bother with it then don't. I have also already made my argument and will let the community discussion take its course because I don't have to look at this man's article ever again. But since people are pinging me and demanding more comments, my argument is that his coverage is trivial even though it may well be in reliable sources. See
WP:GNG, which says a topic must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", while "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention..." ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)21:00, 22 January 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, and promotional. He does not meet WP:PROF--his most cited paper has only 29 references, and his other publications are cited by fewer than 10 papers. His books are self-published, and not even in WorldCat. He is president of only local specialized societies.
Delete Did not pass my source check - fails GNG. This article was conveniently created after he announced he was running for local office. So, fails politician guidelines, too.
Missvain (
talk)
19:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Advertising content can be re-written. The fact that he won Kenneth J. Douglas Award for Excellence should be considered to establish notability.
KartikeyaS343 (
talk)
05:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete subject fails all the notability standards already brought up. I also cannot seem to find any independent coverage indicating that the Kenneth J. Douglas Award for Excellence is significant enough to indicate any sort of notability. Best,
GPL93 (
talk)
17:34, 27 January 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 nominator's comments. I could not find much in terms of coverage from third-party, reliable sources, but the title is rather generic so that makes it a little more difficult.
Aoba47 (
talk)
05:33, 21 January 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.
Apparent essay with possible
WP:SYNTH issues. There may be something to work with here, but it would likely need a
WP:TNT treatment to get it from a research paper style to an encyclopedic article. If I'm wrong and this sort of essay-like article is acceptable under guidelines, I will withdraw this nomination.
Hog Farm (
talk)
21:35, 20 January 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.
Possibly could have been a speedy deletion, but as it went through the AfC process, decided on a full AfD. Cannot find anything in the sources here or online to merit an article.
Edwardx (
talk)
21:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - (Beware of other people of the same name when searching.) This article is clearly an attempt at promotion, and not a very good one at that. Full of non-notable personal trivia that even fans would find unnecessary. When I was a kid I lived with my mom too, but that doesn't mean I need to say it in an encyclopedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)21:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:TNT,
WP:MILL,
WP:TOOSOON,
WP:SIGCOV,
WP:NOTRESUME,
WP:SPAM. This page is such a mess that it can't be turned into a real article. This is very clearly an ordinary model at the start of their career. There is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources; a few spreads is not enough. In 2020, everybody knows what a resume is and spam is; I can not longer
assume good faith.
Bearian (
talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 - The article has been nominated for CSD G12 for copyright violation. I do not know if two different deletion tags can be placed on the same article!
Sambhil32 (
talk)
20:44, 20 January 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. This song may be notable, but the creators of the article haven't explained what it's about except by allusion. The song, which is in
Scots rather than English, needs to be put in context by the article to make sense to most readers. --
Metropolitan90(talk)02:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep This was once an extremely popular dance tune. It is widely included in anthologies visible in a google books search and in searches of old newspapers. Even a quick search reveals that it continues to be played in folk dancing and folk music circles.
IceFishing (
talk)
19:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. While there were no music charts at the time this was popular, this certainly would have made the cut. And for two centuries. A good example of enduring notability.
Metropolitan90 makes a good point, the article should be saved and lyrics pruned and replaced with some contextualization. Let me see what I can do.
Ifnord (
talk)
21:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. I can see that there have already been some improvements to the article. One thing that needs to be addressed is when the song was written. From what I can find, Lady Nairne didn't start writing songs until after
Charles Edward Stuart was dead, which means that the song was not about a contemporary issue but was more a retrospective on the past. --
Metropolitan90(talk)02:55, 22 January 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. If there is a source to cite, the relevant info could be added to the club article and this title re-created as a redirect.
RL0919 (
talk)
21:42, 27 January 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. From the descriptions in the articles, it does seem that this is a separate winery from Freixenet, just with common owners, so not redirecting at this time. If that information is inaccurate (hard to say without sources) and this is a subsidiary or brand of Freixenet, then a redirect could be created, but the sourced information should be in the target article first.
RL0919 (
talk)
21:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect – I write about wine and just a few passing mentions at this point and primarily press releases/promo content is all I could find. Please consider redirecting to the company that owns them -
Freixenet.
Missvain (
talk)
20:31, 21 January 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.
Weak Keep: Not an overly notable actress, but taking into account her work directing/writing/producing short films, I think there is enough to sustain an article.
Dflaw4 (
talk)
13:31, 26 January 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.
Fails
WP:BASIC,
WP:ANYBIO, and
WP:CREATIVE. Unable to locate significant biographical details in secondary sources. Most of the sources cited in the article are reviews of her play How To Load A Musket, with only short biographies of this person. Some sources cited don't even mention here.
Magnolia677 (
talk)
18:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep All of the cited sources do mention her, and enable reliable sourcing of her childhood, education, and acting career. There are reviews of her acting that can be added. However, the reason why I created this article is her play How to Load a Musket which I believe passes
WP:AUTHOR. 3. "The person has created... (a work that) ha(s) been the primary subject... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."
IceFishing (
talk)
18:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Time Out (magazine), New York Edition, published a signed review, which is certainly significant.
History News Network is where professional historians review books, films, plays about history. I just added reviews of a performance of here in a revival of a
George Bernard Shaw play by
Terry Teachout in the
Wall Street Journal and by a reviewer for the
New York Times. More such review can be added. She has been performing on New York stages and reviews of her performances are easy to find in the New York papers.
User:Magnolia677, is this sufficient, or would you like me to add reviews of more of her stage appearances? There have been many. This was, however, as far as I know, the first play that she has written.
IceFishing (
talk)
19:00, 20 January 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. MathSciNet lists 17 publications for him, and checking the same titles in Google Scholar found citation counts of 64, 61, 33, 26, 18, ... for an
h-index of 8. Mathematics in general is a low-citation field but numerical PDEs (his area) isn't, and this isn't enough to convince me of a pass of
WP:PROF#C1. In any case, most of the article is unsourced content about his administrative work, which as department chair is too low-level for
WP:PROF#C6 (that's for heads of entire universities). I tried searching for better sources but it's made difficult by the commonness of his name and I didn't find much. In particular the in-depth sources at
[1],
[2], and
[3] appear to be about three different other people. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
20:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete What is in the article doesn't demonstrate notability, and I couldn't find much more about him beyond his PhD thesis. He doesn't appear to be at Hazara U any more. That he has a common name that he has transliterated in several different ways definitely makes it more difficult to search for him. Comment that I suspect the Google Scholar profile found by
David Eppstein to also be the wrong Muhammed Yousuf, as the subject of this article works in the history of math (rather than in numerical pdes).
Russ Woodroofe (
talk)
13:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:SIGCOV. Even if a professor has had a lot of citations, which I do not concede, but we can't find any reliable sources, then an article can't be created.
Bearian (
talk)
15:05, 27 January 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 article currently discusses a Dungeons & Dragons creature with no significant coverage in non-primary sources. However, "weretiger" is also an Asian mythological creature, which is discussed at the
werecat article.
Were-Tiger currently redirects to there, so if this article gets deleted, it should be also redirected there.
Not a very active user (
talk)
17:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete & Redirect to
werecat, per nom. The D&D version is not notable, with no reliable, secondary sources discussing it in any meaningful manner. The actual mythological version is notable, and has an appropriate article to redirect this to. Looking at the article history, it would appear that this was actually initially created as a redirect to the notable mythological topic, before being hijacked and re-purposed by anonymous IP editors to be about this non-notable fictional variant, and constantly edit-warred by more IP editors whenever someone attempted to restore it to its actual useful purpose. So, this non-notable D&D cruft should be deleted, to prevent any more IP reverts, and then the redirect to
werecat should be recreated.
Rorshacma (
talk)
18:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete and Redirect to
Werecat. Article is sourced entirely to primary sources, and should be deleted before redirecting to prevent possible recreation as has happened in this article and others.
Devonian Wombat (
talk)
05:51, 24 January 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 keep. It seems like not all the sources presented as proof of notability have been rebutted, although it's a weakish "keep" conclusion.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
11:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Originally nominated for PROD with the justification There doesn't appear to be any coverage in independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG, possibly just WP:TOOSOON. The initial editor removed PROD and provided two additional sources, but neither of them has significant coverage of the subject (in fact, neither of them even directly refer to it by name). signed, Rosguilltalk20:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: The nomination says: two additional sources were added, but neither of them has significant coverage of the subject (in fact, neither of them even directly refer to it by name).. Well when I check out one of those sources
[4] I see CECPQ2 thoroughly discussed during it. Now the chance of me using remembering SSL is
Secure Sockets Layer is minimal but just possible; remembering TLS is Transport Layer Security; or even the difference between them is minimal and I'd probably simply say TLS/SSL if I needed write something down about it. My chance of remembering CECPQ2 is Combined Elliptic-Curve and Post-Quantum 2 and quite frankly to mention the latter in most places might to some I might know might turn the sir blue. The key point is the nomination has in my view falsely scummered the document and misled the AfD by claiming the document did not discuss the subject; which it clearly does. The nomination did not even discuss any thoughts of merging to
CECPQ1 ... and I would oppose that at this stage .... maybe an expert might do it later.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
11:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Djm-leighpark, the source you linked above is one of the ones that was originally in the article before I nominated for PROD; the issue with that source is that it is not independent, as it is written by one of the researchers involved in developing CECPQ2. The two sources that were added post-PROD were
[5] and
[6]. Maybe there's something in there that I wasn't able to understand, but I would be amazed if you can find evidence that they discuss the subject in detail there. signed, Rosguilltalk16:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Well having had a look at [7] again carefully I'd have to agree with you on Langley. The wonder of imprecise citations being made a little better slipping me up. Apolgoies and thanks for setting that out. There's better than that on Scholar and to some extent its the sheer waste of my trawling through the lot ... and the issue of no consideration of the merge remains in all events. Some like
[8] (P.18) would be better choice to stand up.
[9] and (
[10]) are better choices. Therefore I remain keep.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
18:01, 23 January 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 - The film is notable but the director is not. Notability can not be inherited. It seems the page was created for promoting this person.
Sambhil32 (
talk)
20:48, 20 January 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 person seems to be on the cusp of notability, and the article has many sources- which don't really hold up to scrutiny. Ignoring what seem to be some low level promotion websites, the other citations are ted talks, the times of India parroting those Ted talks, and bad sources like the Deccan Herald, which has
copied from us before. The forbes reference, which appeared promising,
is just a few sentences, and the Chicago Tribune article is by a community contributor. If there were 3 or so more articles like the forbes one, I might keep, but those sources are not there.
💴Money💶💵emoji💷Talk💸Help out at CCI!03:26, 25 January 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, Redirect or merge - I'm willing to give the article a chance, since Dapper Denver Dooley appeared in a number of Woody Woodpecker cartoons (and a Chilly Willy cartoon), but would also be Ok with a merge too. I think the only WW rivals most people really know are
Wally Walrus and
Buzz Buzzard (maybe
Gabby Gator}. Also, Woody's main cartoons known to people were from 1940-1955, late 1959-1962 and the last one released in theaters. DDD cartoons appearances were in a not-to-notable period.--
Halls4521 (
talk)
23:18, 17 January 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 believe that
WP:NORG would be the appropriate criteria, rather than
WP:NMG for the label, because it's a company/organization rather than a label or a musician and it appears that this label does not satisfy the notability for organizations.
Graywalls (
talk)
19:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. Bands and musical ensembles are companies/organizations as well, but we recognize
WP:MUSIC - exclusively - as the criterion for judging their notability over
WP:CORP, and I have long argued that record labels should be treated the same. WP:MUSIC provides the only language in any notability guideline specifically addressing record labels, and Greyday meets its suggestion of "one of the more important indie labels".
Chubbles (
talk)
14:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)reply
That's from eight years ago, and there were several subsequent discussions, some of which I started. At one point we were close to having actual enumerated criteria at NMUSIC, but the conversation got bogged down on a rather trivial technicality, and I abandoned the project - to my chagrin, as this keeps coming up at AfD over and over and over. In any case, none of this suggests we should ignore NMUSIC, and certainly, people who are interested in music are, in general, going to be better judges of what musical content to include than people who are interested in corporations and organizations.
Chubbles (
talk)
14:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Chubbles:, BMG, Warner, Sony Music, etc are not "bands", they're organizations/corporations. Where are you finding any Wikipedia guidelines references indicating that recording companies should be evaluated under the same categories as bands?
Graywalls (
talk)
23:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I am not claiming that recording companies are bands. I'm merely pointing out that bands and ensembles unquestionably would fall under
WP:CORP as "a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose", but we (rightfully) never (ever! in my entire time here) use that yardstick to decide their notability.
Chubbles (
talk)
14:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Bearian: I'm not sure I follow. There are also numerous bands that have articles. I might have concerns that the articles that exist are part of a walled garden, but just because several artists on a label are not notable (or not created yet) doesn't mean the label is not notable (my example would be
Falcon Records (Texas)). If a label has had significant impact on the careers of, say, seven notable artists, that is an indication of notability even if ten other artists on their roster never achieved a career trajectory that results in a blue link. I have NOT made up my mind that this is a notable record label, but the number of blue links seem to discount WP:MILL.
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions)14:51, 28 January 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 They are the acoustic guitar world's equivalent of Stradivariuses. Read the Lead: "generally recognized to the most desired, and highly valued, acoustic guitars ever made; in "American Guitars - An Illustrated History", author Tom Wheeler describes them as "among American guitar's irreplaceable treasures"". They are known as the "Holy Grail" to acoustic guitar collectors. Also read here:
Vintage Guitar Magazine: Classic Instruments: 1939 Martin D-45. This finishes with the sentence: "If there is any one flat-top steel-string vintage American guitar which can be viewed as a “holy grail” to collectors, the pre-World War II D-45 Martin is it." Just a note, you can buy an "ordinary" acoustic guitar for $450. One of these in top condition will cost you closer to $450,000. There are no production acoustic guitars (vintage, desirable) (other than one-offs with celebrity association) that are worth more.
Tony 1212 (
talk)
20:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Reply to above statement. Thanks for the response Clarityfiend... the
Martin D-45 is a production model today that you can buy off the shelf, and has been made in a number of variants since its re-introduction in 1968. The 91 pre-war ones are a special set in my opinion and that of most other interested parties. Of course this list could be incorporated into the genral D-45 page but my view is that it is rather different in slant and would also make that page a bit long...
I refer to the WP notability criteria linked above:
Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines.
Some quotes from "independent reliable sources" showing that they are typically discussed as a set:
Keep - as explained above, these are like Stradivariuses of the guitar world. Not quite literally, but certainly enough to pass
WP:LISTN. Adding on, from
Fretboard Journal (in the December 2013 issue article
Catch of the Day: 1941 Martin D-45) (emphasis added): “As most guitar geeks know, Martin only made 91 prewar D-45s, which makes this instrument a very rare bird, indeed.” This is an assertion in a notable publication that the exact number of prewar D-45s is well known among guitar enthusiasts! This is a rare and well known historical set of acoustic instruments, this page list certainly has encyclopedic value as it details that set.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
05:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Totally concur with User:Shelbystripes. Here is another quote, this time from a respected reference book: "History of the American Guitar: 1833 to the Present Day" by Tony Bacon (ISBN 1476856389, 9781476856384): "Only 91 pre-war D-45s were made, and in the view of many players and collectors they are among the highest quality, best sounding guitars ever made. With so few in existence and with such wide knowledge of their almost magical quality, these superb, rare, and inevitably expensive instruments appear to follow the rules of supply and demand perfectly." Regards
Tony 1212 (
talk)
05:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep There are plenty of reliable sources for this very rare and valuable instrument. It is sought after by collectors. Per WP:LISTN we keep list like this.
Wm335td (
talk)
20:00, 20 January 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.
Thank you for educating me. I don't understand your rules so I will wait for a verdict. There is no money involved in the making of this page; nor, that I'm aware, in the presence of it.
Brofitable (
talk)
10:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I have added this in the citations because it shows, or purports to show "In 1947, the old monk Xuyun and Master Zhiding took a group photo in front of the Guangzhou Zoulu Mansion" and so this is evidence of a close relationship between the two figures.
A couple of new sources found. One of them inspires an edit which may be sensitive. Posting the candidate edit here, instead of on the article's talks page, for debate:
While notable for its innovative approach, the level of Jy Ding's legacy order's impact thus far may be a matter for further research. There are two institutions under the name "Zen Buddhist Order of Hsu Yun" [1][2][3], although there is some indication that duplication should not be presumed to mean there is any dispute as to which of these is the rightful holder of that name[4].
Now that I understand how dharma names are given in this lineage, and have access to the relevant tonsure poem, I was able to conduct a better web search here, for
Chuan zhi, and for
Hsu Yun Temple. Several new citations added to each.
Zenothing (
talk)
11:52, 18 January 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 fails to establish notability. The editor who removed the PROD cited two sources. I can seem to only access one of them, but "Television Cartoon Shows: An Illustrated Encyclopedia" is a trivial mention that calls the character "Scooby Doo-ish" and nothing else relevant. I'm doubtful that the character has anything more than passing mentions related to the show from what I can see.
TTN (
talk)
15:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge or Redirect - He could possibly be merged to
Wendy and Marvin if people think that article looks salvageable (taking a quick glance at it shows it has similar sourcing problems, but I haven't done a in-depth look as its not the article under nomination). If not, it should probably be Redirected to the main
Super Friends article, where he is already mentioned.
Rorshacma (
talk)
16:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Update - Even with the newly added sources, I still don't see this meeting the threshold for an independent article. Most of the added references are either complete plot summary (the "Back Issue!" source is literally just a long, straight recap of an issue of a comic he appeared in) or very brief coverage (the "Saturday Morning Fever" book only mentions him in a couple of sentences, and mostly just to describe what he was). I still think that merging to one of the broader articles is the better option here.
Rorshacma (
talk)
16:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)reply
What's wrong with the way it is? If anything it just needs updated. Wonder Dog has been in a lot of other things since this was last updated. Why delete it? That makes no sense. --
Noah Tall (
talk)
20:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
It currently fails
WP:GNG. It needs real world information from reliable sources. The one source added to the article seems to be trivial coverage and the others are primary.
TTN (
talk)
21:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. I agree with the statement above that this simply needs to be updated, not deleted. The article includes reliable sources now and there are others available that could be added... —
HunterKahn12:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: I've added some sources so far, and there's another that I'm going to add -- The Ultimate Super Friends Companion, vol 1: The 1970s -- which I'll be able to get my hands on in a couple days. --
Toughpigs (
talk)
13:37, 14 January 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. None of the keep or merge rationales provided any reasons why and what should be merged, but I'll keep the backlinks intact in case someone wants to create a redirect to a list. –
sgeurekat•
c14:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - The D&D specific version of the creature does not have any sort of coverage in reliable, secondary sources that would allow it to pass the
WP:GNG. There are plenty of results that establish that, yes,
WP:ITEXISTS, but nothing that would support an independent article. The only sources being used currently are game books and primary sources. Merging to
hobgoblin, per Cas Liber, could be possible, but given the utter lack of reliable sources, I would not recommend it. It should probably be noted that the multitude of "Keep" votes above are entirely
WP:JUSTAVOTE, and should be discounted appropriately, and I find it weird that so many people continue to try this tactic.
Rorshacma (
talk)
16:56, 19 January 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. None of the keep or merge rationales provided any reasons why and what should be merged (
WP:JUSTAVOTE), but I'll keep the backlinks intact in case someone wants to create a redirect to a list. –
sgeurekat•
c14:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Like many of the other D&D creatures based on well-known mythological creatures, there are really no sources that give this particular version any notability. All available sources regarding this particular incarnation are either primary, in-universe only, or trivial mentions that only establish that
WP:ITEXISTS but little else.
Rorshacma (
talk)
17:19, 13 January 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.
Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Article was generated from GNIS which lists many small ranches and other locations as "populated places" even though they don't meet our notability standards. (Split from previous batch AfD) –
dlthewave☎16:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Here is a blurb in AZ Highways magazine from 1947: Found inside: "COYOTE BASIN RANCH: Operated as summer mountain lodge by owners of Soda Springs Ranch. 5 miles from ... It is convenient to the Arizona Snow Bowl, and in season, activities include riding, fishing, hunting, swimming and ice skating." Does not appear to be any kind of community, one of many camps/lodges throughout AZ.
MB02:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment This was actually a working ranch which allowed guests, so a combination ranch/resort. It's been written up in Duncan Hines Vacation travel guides in the '50s
[11] and there's lots of rough coverage, maybe not enough for
WP:GNG. It wouldn't pass
WP:GEOLAND #1, but might pass GNG with some research.
SportingFlyerT·C06:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Do not merge because it would be ridiculous to give details of a former run-of-the mill farm in a county article. If we did that for every ranch and former ranch in the county we'd also violate
WP:NOTDIR. ----
Pontificalibus19:01, 22 January 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.
Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No evidence that this is or was a notable populated place. (Split from previous batch AfD) –
dlthewave☎16:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Yes, this is a gravel pit, as well as a former stop on the railroad.
GNIS] even shows there was once a building there it. Certainly not a populated place. Just another minor stop on the railroad best listed in
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway if that were ever expanded sufficiently.
MB02:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge with
Winona, Arizona. While this seems to refer to an area located at Darling Cinder Pit, it is not clear that Darling was a settlement. The renaming of Winona station to Darling confuses matters. It would be least confusing to cover everything in the Winona article.----
Pontificalibus14:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete LOL at 7&6=thirteen's attempt to refbomb the article: Timeanddate.com machine-importing all the coordinates in the GNIS does not mean "
somebody considers this to be a place" (as if a human wrote
[15] haha), and the Darling Cinder Pit being part of the hemisphere that can see the
July 2020 lunar eclipse isn't notable. Redirect to Winona is fine, looks like the cinder pit is still in use.
Reywas92Talk20:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I think the most frustrating thing is there's a chance this article could pass
WP:GNG as a non-populated place separate from Winona as an article on the cinder pit, as it has indeed been written about, but now we've got a source-bombed article, and there's only about one or two of those sources which come close to demonstrating notability under GNG (and even with the new sources, the article currently doesn't include the clipping I found which makes clear Darling is just the railroad's name for the Winona station/siding.)
SportingFlyerT·C03:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)reply
We can
split this to
Darling Cinder Pit per
this source which states "Arizona is #1 cinder producer in the country with an annual production of about 1 million tons. Superlite's Darling Cinder Pit is the largest producer in the state." We currently don't have any articles on cinder mines, so this would be a good place to start. It passes
WP:GNG. Then
Darling, Arizona could redirect to
Winona, Arizona, where the station name and pit are mentioned in the lead. ----
Pontificalibus12:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)reply
These are good ideas. Although Darling (or the cinder pit) is a continual important point on the railroad. I still have lots of sources to add concerning that. Where that material winds up (
False choice?
WP:Not paper so there could be some duplication) could be an issue.
Of course, there is a problem with your ruthlessly trimming of
WP:RS discussion of Darling, Arizona. It looks like you are trying to skew the result in the pending AFD, where we are at issue about
WP:GNG. Some of you have talked about "ref bombs"; I am talking about your 'ref bombing.' 7&6=thirteen (
☎)14:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Sources for what? Darling is not a populated place. We know Darling Cinder Pit is notable, and
Winona's railroad station which was renamed "Darling" is obviously mentioned by sources. However why should these two things share an article? Surely it makes more sense to mention the railroad activity at Winona's station in the Winona article, and then either have a separate article on the cinder pit, or also discuss that in the Winona article because that's the place where it's located.----
Pontificalibus17:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
The proper procedure probably needs to be that this article gets moved to Darling Cinder Pit, and then
Darling, Arizona gets redirected to
Winona, Arizona, which would then be edited to have a link to the cinder pit. Keeping this outright as a populated place makes no sense given what we've identified here.
SportingFlyerT·C11:24, 19 January 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.
Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No evidence that this is or was a notable populated place. (Split from previous batch AfD) –
dlthewave☎16:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, no evidence this was a populated place.
GNIS does have a separate entry for a station building, so this was indeed a stop on this old section of the ATSF. Per RFD on train stations, there was no consensus that every station is automatically notable, so this again needs to meet GNG. Certainly reasonable to mention in
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway and redirect, but that article doesn't currently get into this level of detail.
MB01:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment If we could add and redirect this to a list of Atchison & Topeka stations in Arizona, that'd be the best overall result so we don't lose the place name but don't give it its own article. I've been looking at maps from the Arizona library from the 1930s and Corva has buildings nearby on the map, and a road to the settlement, but Daze, which is nearby, does not, and has no road.
SportingFlyerT·C07:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)reply
comment Older topo maps show that there used to be passing sidings here, so there was a "station" in that back far enough there would have been someone to deal with train orders and switches, but it doesn't imply that trains actually stopped here.
Mangoe (
talk)
21:06, 20 January 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.
Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No evidence that this is or was a notable populated place. (Split from previous batch AfD) –
dlthewave☎16:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and Reywas92, not a populated place or otherwise notable. A former named crossing of
Chevelon Creek. The creek article is another stub; theoretically it could be developed to include some info about this crossing/camp site if someone had the inclination and more sources. NN, not enough coverage for GNG/stand-alone article.
MB01:44, 14 January 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.
Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Appears to be an old ranch or homestead with no evidence of notability. (Split from previous batch AfD) –
dlthewave☎16:44, 13 January 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.
Article about a shortlived cable television channel, not
properly referenced as clearing either
WP:NMEDIA or
WP:GNG. This channel operated in a class of services that are exempt from having to have broadcast licenses, which means it isn't "inherently" notable under NMEDIA -- and it existed exclusively to broadcast
infomercials, which means there was nothing "inherently" notable about any of its programming either. But the sources here -- the CRTC's general exemption policy for this type of service (which predates this channel's existence by 19 years and thus fails to mention it at all), a glancing mention of its existence in a (deadlinked) piece about a competing service, and one very short blurb about its launch in an industry trade magazine -- is not enough to get it over GNG. The only source here that's contributing any notability points at all is the Media in Canada hit, but it's not contributing enough notability points in and of itself if it's the only notability-assisting source on offer.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete As much as I'd like an article for every network ever, networks like this, which used a loophole to air nothing but DRTV ad loops and infomercials otherwise ignored by 98% of the viewing public, just plain doesn't meet
WP:N. We have infomercial networks here, but they have something outstanding (like
OnTV4U's OTA distribution or like
Access Television Network, earned
WP:N based on angering hockey and basketball fans for their existence under a now well-shut loophole) which allow them that N. It just isn't found here since it was confined to an easily ignored channel space. Nate•(
chatter)01:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: the article has existed for 5+ years with no issues, the channel existed for about 3 years, there's 3 articles referencing it (I fixed the deadlink so they all work now), it was launched in millions of homes through Rogers Cable (one of the largest TV providers in Canada) and smaller systems such as V Media and Zazeem, it's a unique original brand (not like a local version of some international channel), I see no reason why it playing infomercials is not worthy of an article, and I see it has relevance by way of its connection to Evan Kosiner, the guy who launched the channel, has his own article, and its one of many companies he launched or tried to launch.
musimax. (
talk)
00:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC).reply
Comment That BLP article is a
WP:PROMO/
WP:RESUME quagmire (and none of his channels with CRTC approval ever came to the air) and deserves deletion or a complete
WP:TNTing (consider this a support for either). Rare that I say this on AFD, but hell no to any kind of merger with his article. Nate•(
chatter)01:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)reply
From
Wikipedia:NMEDIA, for a cable television channel "Cable television - Generally, national or regional cable channels are presumed notable. Public access cable stations are not presumed notable unless they serve a major city or a large regional area. For example, a statewide public access channel, or a channel for all of New York City could be presumed notable." So, this was a national channel with about 2 million subscribers from multiple distributors (Rogers, V Media, and Zazeen), as per the cited source in the article. Even if you were to label it as a lowly public access channel, with 2 million subs or more, I'd say that is objectively notable. When you look at the notability guidelines you sourced, there are 5 items: 1) Significant coverage, the media sources mentioned discuss the topic in detail and directly, and its not a trivial mention, and although its 2 articles, there is no mention about how many numbers it must be so I'd say, Yes, that ones met; 2) Reliable: both sources have editorial integrity and are independent from eachother and wrote their own separate articles, so Check that one off; 3) Sources: this is what the definition is "should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." As you can see in the article, there are multiple sources (2), they are secondary sources and provide objective research, and as the definition states, there need not be any specific number of sources, except multiple, of which 2 can count as multiple; 4) Independent of the subject: this excludes works produced by the article's subjects owner or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. As you can see from the article, the 2 sources are not owned or affiliated with BuyNow TV or themselves, and the articles are also not advertising, press releases, autobiographies, or from BuyNow TV's website, so thats another Check; and finally 5) Presumed: this one from what I can tell, just assures that
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and when you look at that definition, this article does not meet that definition either which is, it's not a summary-only descriptions of works, lyric database, excessive listings of unexplained statistics, or an exhaustive logs of software updates. So its a check on this one as well. So, in summary of all this.... BuyNow TV is an objective article that stands on the merits of itself by Wikipedias own standards and should be kept. If it meets Wikipedias own guidelines, then it should be an automatic Keep. [revote struck] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Musimax (
talk •
contribs)
NMEDIA explicitly states that TV channels are not exempted from having to get over GNG or CORPDEPTH just because they exist — the notability test is never just the things the article says, but the quality and depth and range of the references that can be shown to support the things it says. But I've already explained above why the references here are not cutting it: one is just the CRTC's general policy on this type of service, which does not mention this channel at all as it predates this channels existence by 19 years, and thus counts for nothing toward making this channel notable at all because it is not about this channel. A second source merely mentions this channel's existence in passing, in the process of being about a competing service owned by a different company, and thus counts for nothing toward making this channel notable at all because it is not about this channel. And the only source present here that is about this channel is a short blurb, not a substantive piece of coverage, and thus does not represent enough coverage to get this channel over the notability bar all by itself — even just a basic GNG pass requires more than just one source that's actually about the channel. It's true that GNG doesn't require a specific fixed number of sources, but it does require more than just one blurb. And again, NMEDIA does not grant television channels a free exemption from having to have sufficient sources to clear GNG just because they existed — NMEDIA very explicitly states, in fact, that the notability criteria for TV channels still requires reliable source coverage about the channel, and that television and radio broadcasters are not exempted from having to clear GNG just because they existed.
But also, please note that you are not allowed to "vote" more than once in an AFD discussion: you may comment as many times as you like, but your followup comments may not contain a bolded restatement of the "keep" vote you've already given.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I stand by all of the info I noted above, it meets all 5 notability standards. The info you mention about the CRTC article, that it doesn't mention the channel, is 19 years before the channel launched, and counting nothing towards the channel being reliable is all opinion. So what if its 19 years before the channel launched? Wikipedia has, from what I can tell, no rule on such timelines for references. It's relevant because it notes the channel is subject to this rule (even if not in name) and doesn't have a licence, unlike the majority of other Canadian channels which need one.
musimax. (
talk)
16:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)reply
And I stand by what I said, with the added bonus that NMEDIA backs me up. NMEDIA requires a media outlet to be the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to clear our notability standards — regardless of the topic, the notability test is never just the things the article says, but is always the quality of the sources that can be shown to support the things it says. It is entirely relevant that the CRTC decision dates from 19 years before this channel existed — because that fact means that source is not about this channel, and thus does not constitute evidence of this channel's notability. The rule is not that as long as the article has footnotes in it, the topic is automatically notable enough for inclusion here — to constitute support for a topic's notability, a source has to be about that topic, and sources which either (a) briefly mention the topic in the process of being about something else, or (b) don't mention the topic at all, but are present merely to verify a stray fact, are not support for a topic's notability. That is how notability works on here: a source only speaks to the notability of the topic in question if that source is directly about that topic.
Bearcat (
talk)
01:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I continue to support Bearcat's reasoning for deletion; NMEDIA and the fact this is an infomercial channel means by far nobody is going to write about it; there's nothing to write about here. And even if two million people were consistently watching this network day in and out (which would earn N based on 'why on earth are two million Canadians watching an infomercial channel?', but be nearly all negative press), we don't care about viewership overall; just about overall notability. It just doesn't have it. Nate•(
chatter)03:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep as the only feasible merger target has been deleted, and the information is undoubtedly encyclopedic. Notability is marginal, but for this type of page (as opposed to a BLP like the other one) there is good reason to keep the standard as low as policy permits, for the benefit of readers.
Modernponderer (
talk)
18:21, 25 January 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 This is a difficult one since it's a manufactured home community outside Bozeman. Articles like
[17] refer to it as being in Bozeman, and the addresses go to Bozeman, but it is an official US census-designated place (type it in
here) which I think probably qualifies for "legally defined populated place."
SportingFlyerT·C23:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete It's a manufactured home park with about 200 lots. The news article above calls it a neighborhood and as such needs to meet GNG under GEOLAND#2.
Census-designated places are defined for statistical purposes only.
MB00:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)reply
That is not a valid delete rationale. If you believe it falls under GEOLAND#2 then that mandates a merge: "information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it", which would be merge to
Gallatin County, Montana#Census-designated places.----
Pontificalibus08:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep, often legal definitions differ from popular definitions and this may be such a place. Meets
GEOLAND however and is still recognised as a place in general terminology. In cases like this
GNG is also arguably met due to
significant coverage existing is statistical listings such as
this. J947(
c), at
01:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)reply
WP:SIGCOV requires coverage in reliable sources, i.e. those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Is there any evidence that ourhero.in has a competent editorial team or employs any sort of fact-checking before republishing data mined from government sources? Dozens of sites function as GNIS/census mirrors or use their location data, but I wouldn't consider these to be significant coverage. –
dlthewave☎02:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)reply
My theory is that if they are entirely based off government sources so they are reliable but upon reflection since they are basically all copies of each other in different formats they only should count for one source.
GEOLAND should be enough for notability though. J947(
c), at
03:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep This is a distinct named populated place outwith the boundaries of Bozeman, it therefore doesn't fall under GEOLAND2 as a subdivision but GEOLAND1 as a legally recognized place. ----
Pontificalibus08:04, 19 January 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.
Clearly fails
WP:GNG. Also note
WP:NOTDIR. Very little is gained from an incomplete listing of potential ways that kids in school can make trouble. This is an encyclopedia, not reddit. In a
previous discussion, arguments along the lines of Everything on this page is real were made, including "I have been out of school for 25 years but have either been on the giving or receiving end of nearly all of the pranks." and "school pranks are well known and easily verifiable", however that is not reason enough to keep an article.
PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already?18:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I'd advocate delete largely because the entire history is constant addition of bullshit that then has to be removed. It's a magnet for idiots and adds nothing over what's in the
school prank article. Guy (
help!)
18:53, 13 January 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.
A article that heavily uses advertising language and has almost exclusively first-party sources. I cannot, after a bit of searching, find any evidence of notability (May be due to the fact it's overshadowed by another festival of the same name?), and as such it fails
WP:NEVENT.
MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (
talk)
20:41, 13 January 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 the author and sole editor of the article I have a rather clear COI and therefore won't formally vote either way here. However since this AfD I've tripled the article length with some more information to attempt to establish notability and a lot more references, although I'm aware it's still very much borderline, and there are absolutely a lot of weak and likely unnecessary references mixed in, I sometimes forget more is not always better. I do invite the original nominator to read it again to see if the additions help with any of the noted concerns. Understandable if not, as I said it's very borderline but I personally felt when creating the article it was enough to pass
WP:NCOMPANY. EoRdE6(
Come Talk to Me!)05:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak keep per
WP:BARE. Technically, this passes due to
WP:SIGCOV - ongoing and significant coverage in reliable sources. I have not !voted an outright keep because, from a neutral perspective, they do not seem to have done anything particularly notable.
Bearian (
talk)
22:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Reviewers: The article has been expanded and new sourcing added. Please review in your consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Missvain (
talk)
16:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment The only "update" since the !votes above has been to update the number of employees. No new references have been added. I stick with my original comment to Delete and I will add that
notability is not inherited, so while they may have been involved in high profile projects, not a single significant reference is written *about* this organization.
HighKing++ 12:52, 21 January 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 no consensus. Well, this is a complicated close. The key concern raised by the nomination is
WP:INDISCRIMINATE, i.e the list has no clear inclusion criteria and is a mostly arbitrary assembly of facts. There is also a concern that the list is "trivial" but that's not really a policy or guideline (
WP:TRIVIA is but from the discussion it's not clear that it would actually apply). The keep arguments are more numerous but they mostly do not address the delete arguments (with the exception of Andrew Davidson's arguments to keep), rather discussing
WP:LISTN which isn't at issue, stating that the topic's problems can be fixed without explaining why or calling the list "Interesting" without explaining how that invalidates the concerns raised by the delete camp. On balance, it doesn't seem like the delete argument clearly prevails over the keep one in terms of number or strength of argument, as there is enough uncertainty about whether the INDISCRIMINATE concern can be resolved w/o deletion. Thus this is a no consensus but perhaps closer to delete than to keep.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
11:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)reply
This article is an
an indiscriminate collection of information. For example, how does one decide which things to list for George Washington, who was by definition the first President to do absolutely every single thing he did as President. Adams was the "first president to be a Unitarian", but only because the previous president wasn't. Virtually none of the religious "firsts" have any substantial commentary other than by fans of that denomination (possible exception being JFK, whose Catholicism did generate widespread discussion), but JFK as "first president to be assassinated and die on the same day"? How arbitrary is that? What defines "first president to have a son marry in the White House" as a significant first? Why should we include historical inevitabilities like the first president to ride in a motor car, something all would surely have done had the motor car existed? Why choose the number 10 for "first president to have 10 or more biological children"? Why not 7 or 5? What qualifies New York State as significant ("first president to be born in New York State")? First president to predecease his father? Is that significant? One or two of these may be notable in context (e.g. first president to travel abroad while in office, which might well be significant in an article on presidential foreign travel) but for the most part this looks like a list of things where people have a pet topic, have looked for the first president associated with the pet topic, and added it to the article. Guy (
help!)
10:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete trivia and indiscriminate, I can see some value in a list of political firsts as being relevant to the position of president but nearly all of this article is trivia.
MilborneOne (
talk)
10:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
No, it's not a core policy; they are listed at
WP:COPO and
WP:IINFO isn't one of them. In any case,
WP:IINFO does not apply. That policy seeks to exclude raw, undigested bulk data and lists four specific cases: lyrics, software versions, voluminous statistics and summaries of creative works. The page in question is none of these things nor is it anything like them. It's a highly focussed and specific list of presidential milestones, each of which is, by definition, unique – milestones like the first black president or the first president to be assassinated. This information not raw, excessive or indiscriminate. Such criticisms might be applied to something like a
list of presidential diary engagements, which listed just about everything which the presidents have done, but this is nowhere near that. The list's scope echoes that used by numerous reliable and secondary sources which express themselves in just the same terms and so we're good. My !vote stands.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
20:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: Honestly, I'm surprised it took five and half years for somebody to try and delete this. That being said, many reliable sources (far and above what Andrew Davidson has listed) have released lists of presidential firsts, so this passes LISTN and should be kept. The nominator's argument boils down to, "I don't like that certain things are listed, so let's delete the whole damn thing". If the nominator has problems with some of the individual entries on this list, the place for that is the article's talk page, not AfD pbp15:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Purplebackpack89, There are indeed lists of presidential firsts and all kinds of other firsts (magazines have to fill space). The question is whether the firsts in this list are selected according to objective criteria or whether it's an
indiscriminate collection of information. How do you square including anything other than "first president" for Lincoln Washington? What could he conceivably have been or done that did not qualify? And much of the rest actually fail the same test - things that would ave been impossible previously (first car trip), for example, or things that are inherent to the history of the US, not the presidency (first trips to X or Y country). It's nothing to do with liking or not liking what's included, the problem is the lack of any objective criteria to decide. Guy (
help!)
16:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
It's kind of hard for me to take you seriously when you referred to Lincoln as "first president" instead of Washington. Your comments again are arguing for deletion of the whole list because you disagree with some of the entries. Again, this isn't really an AfD matter, but I also believe some of your criteria for removing entries (such as things that would have been impossible previously) are arbitrary. pbp20:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
An inconsequential error I did not make in the nomination. Now, list all the things Washington did in office that were not done for the first time. Focus on the policy (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information) and demonstrate how this list somehow isn't indiscriminate. I am arguing for deletion of the whole list because there is no objective basis for deciding what goes in or out. For a list of Academy Award nominees, we have clear criteria. For a list of presidential firsts? Not so much. A lot of these read like those Guinness world records for "first man to stand on one leg for over four hours on top of a pole while whistling Dixie". I mean, yes, it's the first, but so what? Many of them are accidents of history (first president born after the declaration of independence was a historical inevitability and it's totally arbitrary which one qualified), some are matters of fashion (first president to have facial hair), some would have been impossible for any prior president (first president to ride in a motor car). You could perhaps defend it if every single item was supported by multiple references to "first president to do X" sources that establish that this specific first is considered independently significant, but it's going to be trivial to find one source pegging a specific president as first to do virtually anything, because that's the nature of trivia. Someone writing about the history of Marine One will note in passing that Eisenhower was the first president to travel by helicopter - but his predecessor was the first who could even theoretically have done so as helicopters were experimental until the mid 1940s at least. Arbitrariness, fashion and historical accidents are the hallmarks of this article. Guy (
help!)
09:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep I read through the article and see no reason to delete it. There are references talking about who was the first president to do things on the list. Perfectly valid article and quite encyclopedic.
DreamFocus17:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
In 1957 he became the first present to have a submarine named after him. Doesn't have to be while he was in office. Notable achievements or characteristics should be listed. Editors can use common sense to determine what to include and not, just discuss it on the talk page. Anything notable enough to be mentioned in reliable sources. The media comments that other presidents may have done something, but Washington was the first, such as the first president to stay in the real estate business
[18]DreamFocus10:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Anything actually relevant can be included on each president's page. This page is mostly trivia, and is very much an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because information exists in this world doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to reproduce it as a list.
Hog Farm (
talk)
20:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Two years ago I
removed a massive amount of the most ridiculous shit imaginable: Carter was the First President to mark the 40th anniversary of his
inauguration, the first presidents to win more than 1 million...2 million...3 million...up to 65 million votes in an election, Johnson was the First President to serve during the reign of Queen
Elizabeth II but not to have met her. I see the list has hardly improved since then, full of items that are full of pointless qualifiers (First president to be named Time Man of the Year for his reelection), countries visited, overly specific nonsense (First president to attend the NYC Veterans Day Parade while in office), routine basics (First president born in Missouri.), and generic tidbits of history (First president to have appointed a secretary of energy.). And of course anything Washington did would be the first president to do so... Few articles on Wikipedia are more purely indiscriminate trivia than this.
Reywas92Talk21:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep The list certainly needs trimming down. The inclusion criteria need to be very tight. Only notable things should stay on the list. Nothing unsourced should be on it. But there are many notable things on the list currently. I also note that the page is serving our readers: nearly 60k read it every month. This needs cleanup, not deletion.
Captain EekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓22:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I thought it was pretty clearly a LISTN pass. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists. This list fulfill recognized informational purpose.
Lightburst (
talk)
03:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Lightburst, notability isn't the issue. The absence of any objective inclusion criteria is the problem. First president to use a Blackberry, first president to use an iPhone, first president to use an iPhone 6, first president to use Twitter, where do you draw the line? Why did Washington not wear a digital watch or use a smartphone? Guy (
help!)
09:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Miraclepine, OK, so what, you'd start by removing everything from Washington because all of that is indiscriminate? And all historical accidents and things that were impossible for previous presidents absent the use of a time machine? Guy (
help!)
13:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment If this list is Kept I think it should be placed under permanent
semi-protection. There is always a low-level murmur of oh-so-clever vandal-edits. Putting the List under permanent semi-protection would remove some of that vandalistic-hubbub.
Shearonink (
talk)
19:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete this fails
WP:INDISCRIMINATE and
WP:TRIVIA (which does not technically exclude these types of articles, but this is a classic example of a terrible, all-trivia article.) The question really is: does this belong? While some non-Wikipedia sources do cover presidential firsts, they're typically just lists of trivia. The topic is probably notable in some way, but I have absolutely no idea how to salvage this article. I'd probably recommend giving it a stay of execution and selectively merging the important information to the presidential pages. Therefore, also calling into a bit of
WP:IAR, I'm basing my delete !vote on something found in
WP:TRIVIA: A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. This is a classic example of a disorganised, unselective list, and in a way that does not appear to be fixable.
SportingFlyerT·C12:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)reply
No.
WP:TRIVIA is irrelevant as it's not about material which some consider trivial. Instead, it is guidance to avoid sections within articles which are miscellania of unrelated facts and incongruous detail. As such, it is advice on how to structure an article and so has no place in a discussion of whether there should be an article at all. And the page in question has an appropriate and sensible structure – a section for each president. And the facts are not miscellanous because they are all firsts for that president and so have something in common.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
16:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)reply
This entire article is one giant blob of miscellaneous unrelated facts and incongruous detail, sorted by president. The fact the miscellaneous trivia share a topic makes them neither related nor unselective.
SportingFlyerT·C12:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Disagree. If they are sorted by president, then they are related. As for selective, this list factors out anything that didn't involve the people who became President of the United States. pbp14:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Your argument doesn't make any sense - the facts themselves are completely unrelated to other facts, many of them are unsourced, and this is mere trivia. The keep votes here are just a collection of useful/I like it votes, but this clearly fails
WP:NOT.
SportingFlyerT·C04:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - Per all of the reasons to keep mentioned above in this discussion. I am surprised as a long time user of Wikipedia that this is even a discussion. I may be new to this whole editing gig, but as a long time Wiki reader, I would expect this article to exist. It is definitely something I would look up. This is data that should be preserved, not thrown away because pieces of it seem arbitrary. If something doesnt seem right, needs citation, seems arbitrary, seems redundant or unnecessary, than edit it. Deleting the whole project in its entirety seems like overkill. If there seems to be something amiss or off about the material in said article, than use the talk page? I thought that is what it was there for. I love Wikipedia, Im a long time reader, and throwing articles like this away? History is not arbitrary, and this article documents history. To remove it seems like a severe waste. :( Again I would stress, that if something seems wrong with it, edit it. Do not simply get rid of it all... Apologies if I am out of line by adding my two cents, or how I am adding them. Still learning the ropes, if I screwed up a policy or guideline, hit me with my mistake. I need to learn to be a better editor yet, and have a lot to learn. Thank you.
SageSolomon (
talk)
03:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - I think this is encyclopedically fascinating and I'm with
Lightburst on this one - the article needs good editing to clean out the cruft and lists like this are valuable - maybe not to everyone, but to many of us, they are.
Missvain (
talk)
16:22, 20 January 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 article is a train wreck and seems to be in dispute. That's not a reason to delete in itself, but I can't seem to find any neutral, non-PR sources that I could use to clean the article up. So I'm afraid deletion is the only answer.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. I noticed this at the same time Ritchie333 probably did, because an IP editor tripped edit filters when removing material from the article. In investigating that, I realized that not only was the removed material based on primary sources and blogs, but there is no independent significant coverage of the company, just PR and passing mentions. --
RL0919 (
talk)
15:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: An article on a company going about its business. Announcements of office locations or completed installation tasks are routine coverage, nor are the awards and listings significant for
WP:NCORP.
AllyD (
talk)
09:06, 27 January 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.
I can find no way that this list of shows and tours passing either
WP:GNG or
WP:NTOUR. The article is unsourced (and has been tagged as so since 2005). Almost all of the search results I can turn up for this appear to be Wikipedia mirror sites, although some appear to be related to the band or are other non-RS like Discogs and ticket sites. I recommend a redirect to
The Corrs.
Hog Farm (
talk)
14:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete As far as I can tell this is a list of random events and festivals they have performed at, with no context or evidence of them being notable, either standalone or collectively. Not sure of need for a redirect as the name of the band is in the title.
Mattg82 (
talk)
20:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - It would help if the article's author attempted to list ALL tours by the band and all individual shows within each, but even that would suffer from the notability issues mentioned by the nominator and previous voter. This article looks like a work in progress that someone forgot about many years ago, and even so it does not attempt to state the notability of what it is trying to cover. Individual tours can have their own articles if each satisfies the requirements at
WP:NTOUR. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)23:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete – Just a list of concerts from the Corrs. Perhaps it would be more valuable to have articles about their tours, when they pass GNG.
Missvain (
talk)
21:00, 21 January 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.
That is purely hair-splitting. It is a degree college. And we have almost always kept these in the past. For your information, British polytechnics didn't award their own degrees either. But they were still notable institutions. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
16:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
@
KartikeyaS343: NORG states in the second paragraph: Simply stated, an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose. This includes commercial and non-commercial activities, such as charitable organizations, political parties, hospitals, institutions, interest groups, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, for-profit educational institutions or organizations, etc. —usernamekiran
(talk)18:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes I understood but why do you think it is a for-profit educational institutions? At least this is not any private education institute but a accredited college.
KartikeyaS343 (
talk)
20:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)reply
@
KartikeyaS343: Hi. If it was non-profit, then it would have been mentioned on the college listing websites, or somewhere in the article itself; and somewhat because of the entries
like these. —usernamekiran
(talk)22:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)reply
delete I couldnt find any
reliable source even remotely mentioning the college. I could find only one non-reliable source stating the college was closed down, it didnt mention when. @
Necrothesp: I have seen you around in
WP:RM a lot, and I respect you. I think you are not familiar with colleges/system from India or Pakistan. They are simply business. Unlike in other countries, first of all you have to pay the fees. In case of education loan, it is not the responsibility of the college. It is either of the government's responsibilty, or the student has get to loan from the bank. But the colleges demand the money up-front. Pure business. Vandalism of this article:
special:diff/409613661. It has been at least 9 years since the college is down, and I couldnt find when it closed down. Only one non-reliable source mentions it being inoperative, but not since when. All other sources seems to be unaware that the college has gone defunct. That shows is how much notable the college is: nothing at all. —usernamekiran
(talk)19:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes, I entirely understand that. But there is no essential difference for our purposes between a for-profit college and a not-for-profit college. If they are accredited and award degrees they are generally considered to be notable. And being defunct is irrelevant to notability. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
09:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)reply
In Pakistan, every degree awarding college must get accredited before becoming operational. It is not a feat of achievement/notability. It is part of the basic requirement process. I didnt mean to tie notability with operational status. What I meant was, it is non-notable that even the local media/college listing websites havent noticed/acknowledged it been defunct since at least 9 years. They still show it operational. I couldnt even find the date when it went defunct, not any kind of sources. I am saying such disregard by these sources shows lack of notability. —usernamekiran
(talk)09:35, 27 January 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.
every single source in this is basically the same and all "fake" news sites published by black hat SEO firms. I can find no actual coverage of Bundini in reliable sources.
Praxidicae (
talk)
14:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete The use of fake news sites to give the impression of notability means this article was almost certainly created for promotional purposes. Best,
GPL93 (
talk)
16:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Question As the creator of the previous AFD submission for this person, I have no ardent desire to have him found notable, but, aside from Thrive Global, which states explicitly that that section of the site is for anyone who wanted to sign up as a contributor, what basis is there for judging all the cited sources as fake?
Largoplazo (
talk)
19:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete – What a weird bunch of sources this search pulled up. All non-mainstream publications or just passing mentions of him posing in photo for a lifestyle magazine. A lot of promo content, too.
WP:TOOSOON.
Missvain (
talk)
21:07, 21 January 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 The process being used her is why I think we should only allow new articles to be created by AfD. This would probably require more people to focus on AfD, which might be hard to bring about, but it would save us headaches.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
23:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
delete the subject fails
WP:GNG, as well as
WP:NACTOR. Also support speedy delete as
WP:SNOW can be applied. @
John: I am not sure what you meant. Sometimes, I think any registered users should be allowed to create new articles, and sometimes I think we should set the bar to extended confirmed. —usernamekiran
(talk)06:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I meant "only allow articles to be created through AfC". In the early days of Wikipedia we allow non-registered users to create articles. 4 Tolkien related articles were created one day back in December 2002 by one non-registered user. one was on
Barahir which never had any sources for the next 17 years until it was deleted this month.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
14:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Hey
usernamekiran &
Johnpacklambert you both have sound & valid arguments here. The thought that anyone can create an article is borderline annoying & for relatively new users I feel they should be compelled to submit their articles via the AFC until they prove they have grasped the concept of notability.
Celestina007 (
talk)
15:54, 21 January 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.
12: They have been/are the featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across national radio, i.e. their ongoing show on TBS Radio, as mentioned in the article.
Nonnel (
talk)
14:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep as passes criteria 2 and 5 of
WP:NMUSIC with charting albums on a recognised national chart and two albums on a major label; they also have coverage in reliable sources such as Rolling Stone, imv
Atlantic306 (
talk)
00:22, 26 January 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.
Fails
WP:GNG. This is an advertisement for a local
historical society, which contains both details on that organization's programming not suitable for an encyclopedia, as well as a fair bit of unsourced local history.
Daask (
talk)
12:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete -- I see nothing notable in this. It might be merged as a brief Heritage note appended to the bio-article on Mossby. This could have a link to the association's website, which they can probably be trusted to keep up to date, whereas this article would need regular maintenance.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Not a good idea. This is large, active regional historic and landscape preservation association that should not be made to disappear into an article about a Civil War officer.
IceFishing (
talk)
20:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep When nominated, article had no embedded sources (there were some sources in a list at the foot of the page.) I have added multiple reliable sources to the article. And removed the promotional tone. Certainly the page can use improvement, but this organization is a player in the development battles that rock this region, a D.C. suburb/ex-urb in the Northern Virginia tech belt that is one of the fastest growing regions in the U.S.. Recently, this Association led the fight that put the historic black (freedmen) hamlet of
Willisville, Virginia on the National Historic Register. Respectfully requesting that
User:Daask and
User:Peterkingiron consider revisiting this discussion. Thank you,
IceFishing (
talk)
18:35, 16 January 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.
A board game which failed to get any attention beyond a single review in a magazine which seems to have reviewed pretty much every game they got a copy of. Even boardgamegeek simply copies the official text and adds one line of commentary in parentheses. Nothing else in the 26 Google hits seems to indicate actual notability for this game
[22].
Fram (
talk)
13:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - The short review in Dragon appears to be the only coverage this board game received in secondary sources. The remainder of the sources that can be found are either simple database listing (such as the BGG link currently in the article) and sales pages. This does not pass the
WP:GNG.
Rorshacma (
talk)
16:02, 20 January 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.
One "short and sweet" review (cf. the name of the section this review appeared in), a listing in what can be described as the Imdb of board games, and that's about it. 42 Google hits
[23] don't reveal more useful stuff, just commercial sites and more wikis.
Fram (
talk)
12:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete/Possible Merge - A single, self-described as "short", review in Dragon is the only secondary source that is useful for establishing notability. The BGG entry is, of course, not a valid source for establishing notability. So, the product fails the
WP:GNG. As the parody was an officially licensed spin-off of BattleTech, it could potentially be mentioned at
List of BattleTech games, in which case this could be used as a Redirect there.
Rorshacma (
talk)
16:16, 20 January 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.
A single review isn't sufficient to establish notability, and I couldn't find anything helpful among the 49 Google hits
[24]. Publisher doesn't even have an article, so no obvious redirect target either.
Fram (
talk)
12:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - The single review in Dragon is, alone, not close to allowing this product to pass the
WP:GNG. All other sources are, like the RPG.net link, simple database entries that do not establish notability. Neither the publisher nor creators are notable themselves, so there is no appropriate redirect or merge target.
Rorshacma (
talk)
16:21, 20 January 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.
A single review in a niche magazine. Rpg.net is just a database listing. Other sources I could find were similar: commercial sites like Amazon, fansites, database listings... but no sources actually establishing notability. Since this is a supplement to a game that doesn't even have an article apparently, no good redirect target.
Fram (
talk)
12:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Per usual for these, the Dragon review is the only coverage this game received, and even that was not much. The RPG.net source is, of course, not useful for establishing notability, as it is nothing more than a database entry for the product, and, in this case, doesn't even appear to be about the correct game. Complete failure of the
WP:GNG.
Rorshacma (
talk)
16:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Per nom, more of the usual RPG cruft. No copies listed in Worldcat. How many pages is this thing? Is this a book, a booklet, or a pamphlet? Why would we assume that an ephemeral whatever for a non-notable product line based of a barely notable game system is notable? What a waste of time.
Grayfell (
talk)
00:41, 24 January 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 keep. Keeping - please consider improving with the sources provided by
sillyfolkboy and if there are still concerns, consider PROD. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith!
Missvain (
talk)
18:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I can't find any good sourcing for this that makes it notable by our standards, in books or news. (More notable, it seems to me, is the bicycle race under the same name.) The current article is really just a semi-promotional entry.
Drmies (
talk)
16:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Not my area of expertise, but the race has had coverage in several prominent Italian newspapers which makes the topic appear to meet general notability in my view.
[25][26][27][28]SFB20:51, 13 January 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 orMerge with
Albert Rothstein because
WP:NEXIST: A Google Books search shows that there's coverage in multiple secondary sources.
All-Star Companion vol 4 and
The Alter Ego Colletion are media criticism books about DC Comics. Also mentioned in Up, Up and Oy Vey!: How Jewish History, Culture, and Values Shaped the Comic Book Superhero and All New, All Different?: A History of Race and the American Superhero. There is also coverage of the character appearing on the TV version of The Flash in
Techtimes and
Comingsoon.net. --
Toughpigs (
talk)
03:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
That character has its own article, so those are irrelevant to this article. The sources would need to be about the "Gerome McKenna" character.
TTN (
talk)
03:06, 13 January 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.
Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No evidence that this is or was a populated place; satellite view indicates that this may have been a railroad junction. –
dlthewave☎21:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes, my BEFORE search turned up a few sources like these. Frankly I don't see how any of the newspaper articles could be used to improve the article. Snippets like "At Angell, the force of the quake was great. In the house of the railroad agent, furniture was. moved" and "This will include the sightseeing service to the Grand Canyon from Flagstaff and Williams. Flagstaff water is being shipped to Winslow, Williams, Ash Fork, Seligman, Angell and the Grand Canyon in tank cars by the Santa Fe" mention the topic in passing but are not useable for creating article content. –
dlthewave☎02:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete No evidence this was any kind of legally recognized place. The trivial mentions above are not enough to meet GNG per GEOLAND#2. WP does not serve as a gazetteer (without regard to notability). GEOLAND specifically says "WP has features of a gazetteer; therefore, geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable." A collection of trivia does not establish notability. This may have been nothing more than a water tank during the steam engine period and/or a telegraph relay station. Certainly reasonable to mention in
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway and redirect, but that article doesn't current get into this level of detail.
MB03:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep as a legally recognised settlment.
This source makes a clear contrast between Angell which it calls a "small settlement" and for example Anita which it calls a "small station".
This source states "Padre Canyon is deep and serpentine; a portion of Route 66 was built across it connecting the towns of Winona and the long-gone town site of Angell on the railroad’s main line. Here was the nation’s first commercial tourist camp in 1920".--
Pontificalibus09:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep In addition to the above sources, I own physical road maps of Arizona by three different mapping companies (
H.M. Gousha Company,
Rand McNally, and R. E. Donnelly) from the late 1960s and early 1970s. These are statewide maps distributed by gasoline companies for the traveling public, not maps of every ranch and station in a small region, and yet all three maps not only include Angell but explicitly mark it the same way as other cities. That seems like pretty clear evidence to me that this was a permanent settlement. (While I can't upload the maps due to copyright issues, I can provide the relevant sections over email by request if necessary.)
TheCatalyst31Reaction•
Creation04:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Actually, you don't have to go as far back as the 1970s, because I checked the
official 2019 highway map from the Arizona Office of Tourism, and Angell is included. Again, that's a tourist map for the general traveling public, not a comprehensive map of all locales. General-purpose maps have been used as both secondary sources and evidence of notability for highways as long as I can remember, since they distill a broad range of geographic data into the most relevant and significant roads and features; I see no reason not to apply the same logic for settlements.
TheCatalyst31Reaction•
Creation05:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)reply
comment I'm still a bit dubious about notability but the one thing we cannot claim is that it is a populated place. We have no evidence that it was ever anything beyond a rail junction; dots on maps really aren't good enough evidence.
Mangoe (
talk)
21:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Geoland-related discussions often seem to rest on pretty fine distinctions about what constitutes legal recognition, if somewhere is populated and to what extent, and how much sourced information we need to be able to find to make an article worthwhile. In this case I find the evidence raised by
TheCatalyst31 sufficiently compelling to opt for keeping.
Hugsyrup07:18, 25 January 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.
Gives no indication of their editorial standards, looks like a hobby blog and while follower count is meaningless I highly doubt a magazine with a whopping 22 followers on twitter has the required reach and editorial standards we require
this is laughably bad as a source and should be blacklisted. It is part of the same set of scam/spam pay for press sites created by blackhat SEO's to spam clients. Take a look at the very first "staff" profile [https://www.theamericanreporter.com/our-staff/ here]
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete the first source, Magazineplus.com, offers "Sponsored Guest Posts". The second source, seekerstime.com, has a contact address that does not exist. The third source, The American Reporter, has an editorial policy that makes clear they will publish anything you like. The lead article on theAmericanreporter.com right now is titled "Mortgage Broker in California" and is very helpful if you are looking for a mortgage, as they link to the brokers. The fourth source, kazimagaine.com, does not have any listed contact info. Number five, thesource.com, is
published by a music marketing company. And so on. I hate to use the phrase, but these sources are all a kind of news that rhymes with cake. GNG fail.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
07:21, 21 January 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 says "Ashtanayika are the eight companions of Goddess Durga" but
Durga doesn't mention these companions. A search turns up various spellings of
Ashta Nayika which is about 8 heroines. One of the sources is
[36] which is speculation and clearly not an RS. I removed that and then realised some of the names of the companions were about other subjects, and further investigation made me think AfD is appropriate. I also found the source of the image which I hoped would be enough, but isn't.
[37]Doug Wellertalk11:10, 20 January 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 person seems to lack notability. Numbers of the references used are particularly poor, and seen to be dubious or vanity links, and not considered reliable sources —
billinghurstsDrewth11:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete promotional article with no indication of notability (the Yahoo source is a press release provided by Accesswire). -
Zanhe (
talk)
02:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - All sources are either primary, PR releases, or just plain fake news/spam/blackhat SEO sites (including the ones added by
User:Achiiiiver), so notability has resoundingly failed to be established here. —
Coffee //
have a ☕️ //
beans //
12:47, 23 January 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 claim is that she is the : the youngest 'Woman' to 'ski' to the south pole 'solo'. I see too many variables here, but I admit skiing to the south pole is no simple task. The case for mt Everest is weaker though.
Daiyusha (
talk)
11:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep - I would entirely agree with the contributors above that achievements and level of coverage mean that the article clearly meets notability guidelines.
Dunarc (
talk)
20:24, 23 January 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 in article or online. May be a speedy A7 candidate, but since I first prod'ded it it seems not right to then tag it for speedy, so here we are.
Fram (
talk)
09:55, 20 January 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 Draftify. The page's author has indicated that they would be happy for the page to be draftified until it is worked up into a more complete article.
GirthSummit (blether)17:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
This is just a dictionary definition, sourced to an online dictionary. Ideally, we'd redirect to
Americanophilia, which is what the article ought to be called if we are to have an article about this subject, but since that article doesn't exist I don't see what else to do. (Happy to support a redirect to an appropriate target if one can be identified)
GirthSummit (blether)09:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Even if it is currently just a dictionary definition at this point, this is a relevant enough topic that deserves its own page. More edits will be made. There are no appropriate targets where this can be added to which means that it, with some more additions, is a viable page.
PiPhiTau (
talk)
15:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
PiPhiTau, it's possible that we should have an article on Americanophilia, and I wouldn't be averse to this being draftified while you work it up into an article with appropriate reliable sources, but as it stands it's a dictionary definition, sourced to a dictionary, which per
WP:NOTDICTIONARY isn't really a valid article.
GirthSummit (blether)17:04, 21 January 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.
Inadequately sourcing for a blp. All we have is that she sold herself - either on camera or in a brothel and that is UNDUE unless we can properly source the rest of her life.
SpartazHumbug!15:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak keep I'm reflecting back on my revamp of the article and the sources - primarily small mentions. The most significant coverage I could find was around an arrest related to an outstanding warrant and the drama that ensued around it.
Missvain (
talk)
20:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep There's enough here from reliable sources to satisfy GNG. It's not only one aspect of her life that's covered in the sources. The photo with the cop was newsworthy. The involvement with the serial killer case was newsworthy. The AVN awards were newsworthy and sourced to a RS and not just AVN.
Side note, irrelevant to notability, The comment in the nomination about "sold herself" is not a particularly sensitive way to describe a sex worker. It reflects a value judgment that ill befits comment on wikipedia about a living person. She sold a service. She appeared in adult entertainment. Those things can, and should, be mentioned without the slant.
David in DC (
talk)
Delete. This is about a person who worked in porn and as a prostitute without making any waves in either field that would satisfy
WP:NACTOR/
WP:NMODEL, and once got arrested by the police. It does not get more trivial than that. The sources are a joke: The Miami New Timesarticle is about a Leroy C. Griffith, "pioneer of porn" (at least as far as Miami is concerned, apparently), who manages sex dancers, among whom is Strong; the citation of a
book about the infamous
Mustang Ranch where our subject used to work (she is indeed mentioned a couple of times among the staff); a
work of fiction (!); and then sources to news reports about her arrest or the arresting officers posing with her, along with porn websites tesifying that she starred in adult ware and won awards. -
The Gnome (
talk)
00:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
She was neither an actress or a model, so she has no more need to meet those than she needs to meet
WP:FOOTBALL. The question is whether she meets
WP:GNG, and these repeated misunderstandings of of guidelines add nothing to these discussions.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
08:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Still can't see the direct link between WP:PORNBIO and WP:ACTOR/WP:NMODEL, huh? Our subject is listed as a " former pornographic actor." And here is what
WP:ACTOR says, actually, quoted for your perusal: "Previous criteria for pornographic actors [i.e. WP:PORNBIO] were superseded by the above [i.e. WP:NACTOR] and the basic guidelines after the March 2019 RfC." Alla them porn actors from March 2019 onwards have their
notability assessed on the basis of GNG or the NACTOR specifcs. Clear?
-
The Gnome (
talk)
13:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Considering that the RfC didn't propose that language in
WP:NACTOR, the RfC closer didn't mention it, and the post-RfC discussion had a consensus to do something else entirely and it only existed because of some random user adding it anyway, I've removed it so we never have to have this discussion again.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
22:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes, adult film stars are indeed actors or actresses. One of my goals is to represent them with the same dignity allotted to their "mainstream" actor brethren.
Missvain (
talk)
21:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
They're not actors in the sense
WP:NACTOR conceives of, which is why it's basically impossible for anyone in porn to meet those guidelines; they're much more accurately seen as entertainers in this context (if one were going to try to pin an SNG to them). Nonetheless, there's never been a discussion proposing, let alone a consensus for, a requirement that they should have to meet
WP:NACTOR.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
22:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
The relevant SNG is
WP:Notability (people)#Entertainers, for which WP:ENT, WP:NMODEL and WP:NACTOR are shortcuts. It is meant to apply to entertainers of all types except musicians. That SNG also includes pundits and celebrities. As a performer of a role for entertainment of views, the porn performer meets the literal definition of actor. As a former stripper, the subject meets the loose definition of dancer. Finally the
RfC explicitly calls for porn stars to be evaluated under the entertainers. The WP:ENT criteria are attainable as long as independent reliable sources support the notability claims.
• Gene93k (
talk)
01:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - I was skeptical before, but after missvain and coffeeandcrumbs edits, I believe she passes WP:BASIC
[41][42][43] plus the multiple mention of her brotheling activities. Her awards and hall of fame status are evidence towards WP:ENT.
Morbidthoughts (
talk)
23:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)reply
For your references to general notability I won't respond any further but about the porn related regalia, I must point out that, after the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO, porn awards are not enough by themselves as evidence of notability. Otherwise, it'd be as if WP:PORNBIO were still in place, intact and omnipotent. -
The Gnome (
talk)
09:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete The sources in the article just look too close to tabloid journalism, and hence
WP:BLPSOURCES has to come into play. I found sources in a news search, but for a different Samantha Strong in the UK who was arrested for (but not convicted of) fraud, who doesn't look notable either. Therefore keeping this article would be problematic for people expecting the festival organiser to be suddenly confronted with information about a pornographic actress.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)reply
We do not delete articles on people whose "only notability derives from pornography": there is no such guideline, no such consensus, and Wikipedia is not
WP:NOTCENSORED. (This is not about this article per se, just opposing people posting intentionally misleading claims about notability guidelines in the hope that no one notices and it gets let slide.)
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
09:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: I am definately not trying to mislead anyone. Pornbio was
depreciated. If we take out the pornography notability what are we left with? As Ritchie333 has said below, not much. A Polaroid with police? My opinion is that we have a WP:PORNBIO and there is not other notability. So that is a delete per consensus on our People Notability discussion.
Wm335td (
talk)
21:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)reply
If the claim "The officers paid $15 for a glossy photo of them with Strong and $10 for a Polaroid photograph of Strong wearing only a g-string, which were taken after her performance at a Tucson strip club" (which makes up a significant chunk of the article) was cited in multiple pieces in the New York Times and the Washington Post, I might agree with you, but for this sort of subject, which involves treating living people respectfully and carefully, we need much more solid sourcing than local newspapers.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I appreciate your position, Ritchie333, and while I don't disagree that "New York Times" or "Washington Post" sources would be preferred, I still feel there is enough to meet GNG.
Dflaw4 (
talk)
11:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete striking my vote, thinking further on this as a BLP, there's
possibly some evidence the subject of the article is not interested in being remembered ("Then there are those girls who are just gone. Samantha Strong was from the ‘80s and it’s like...what the f*** happened to her?"). I realise that the wishes of the subject of an article do not determine whether an article exists and we can't discern that here anyway, but this caused me to rethink my !vote here. Looking at this again, I can see that there is not much depth here to satisfy
WP:ENTERTAINER: no significant productions, no evidence of a fan base and there is no evidence of "unique, prolific or innovative contributions".--
Goldsztajn (
talk)
23:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete We do not keep pornbios any more without
WP:SIGCOV. The pornography awards are not notable either. I agree with the notion that the photo taken with police makes up a lot of the article. We certainly do not have SIGCOV, and so I cannot see that this person passes.
Lightburst (
talk)
23:48, 30 January 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 and move
Elder Sign (card game) here. The fictional element is, as mentioned in the nom, not sufficiently covered in a way that would allow this to pass the
WP:GNG. Searches bring up plenty of mentions of it within fiction, but no actual real-life analysis. The tabletop game with the same name, however, is notable, and most of the sources that come up during searches are actually talking about it rather than the fictional element it was named after. So, if this article is deleted, the game's article should be moved to this space to be the primary subject.
Rorshacma (
talk)
16:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
To the extent that it can be cited that the card game is in fact named after this, an abbreviated version of this content could be kept as part of the history or background of the card game, which would effectively then be merged over this page rather than resulting in wholesale deletion. The edit history could be maintained through a round-robin swap to the resulting redirect.
BD2412T02:10, 21 January 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.
Redirect This is a named crossing of the
Little Colorado River. Redirect there where it is mentioned as a one of two historic crossing points. The road to the west is "Wukoki to Black Falls Crossing Road" and to the east it is either BIA 6730 or 6735 depending on the map. But the crossing is not any kind of populated place. See also
this and
this for further confirmation.
MB00:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I think Black Falls could be notable as a named feature for which more than statistics exist, and there's newspaper reports calling it an area where people live such as
[44], and
[45] calls Black Falls a "trading post" confirmed by
[46], and
[47] seems to discuss the falls significantly. Also a lot of other articles out there about people who used the ford throughout history, like the "Mormon Trek." So this could technically pass both GEOLAND and the "named natural feature" test, but it would have to be renamed just to Black Falls, Arizona.
SportingFlyerT·C04:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I could be mistaken, but the article describing a 100-foot drop from a 300-foot-wide precipice seems more consistent with the nearby
Grand Falls, Arizona. None of the other sources seem to describe Black Falls as anything more than a large riffle. –
dlthewave☎20:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Black Falls Crossing is a natural geographic feature that passes GNG (
[48],
[49],
[50],
[51] etc) Black Falls Trading Post was a populated place located there that also passes GNG (
[52],
[53],
[54],
[55] etc). See also Table 6.10
here entitled "sites associated with Black Falls Crossing"). Additionally, according to
this a fort was erected at Black Falls in 1868. A strategically (noted by early settlers
[56],
[57]) and geologically important site supported by multiple sources. This could be a feature-class article if people can get complete access to on- and offline sources. If that's not enough there's whole bunch of stuff on
Uranium mining and the Navajo people#Community involvement and response concerning the Black Falls community. People do currently live there e.g.
[58]: "Yazzie's home is atop a yellow hill in the rolling spread near Black Falls, a wide riffle in the Little Colorado River when it's running"
and "the Navajo People of the remote community of Black Falls Arizona was awarded a $20,000 Environmental Justice Grant to address uranium-polluted drinking water sources". ----
Pontificalibus13:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment A page move to "Black Falls, Arizona" or "Black Falls Trading Post, Arizona" seems appropriate given the new sources. we should exercise caution with sources that simply use Black Falls as a landmark (the wagon party that camped near Black Falls, the fort that was between Black Falls and Grand Falls, someone who lived on a hill near Black Falls) but there seem to be plenty of useful sources even if we disregard these. –
dlthewave☎20:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)reply
It seems “Black Falls” has long been used to refer to an informal area around the crossing. It probably makes sense to have the article primarily about the geographic feature, and then include sections on the trading post, the fort, the current community, and other human uses associated with it. That way anyone trying to find out about Black Falls, Arizona will hopefully find what they want in one article. The title can be changed in due course if necessary.—--
Pontificalibus21:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Unless there is something notable on it or something of historical significance happened there, listing a place does not make it notable.
PenulisHantu (
talk)
05:25, 19 January 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 fails to establish notability. Current secondary sources seem to all be trivial mentions that do not equate to the significant coverage necessary to pass
WP:GNG.
TTN (
talk)
22:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - It seems that this was nominated and kept at a previous AFD due to the claim that it was discussed in secondary sources. However, actually looking in to it, it would seem that the only bit of non-in universe information that is being supported by those secondary sources is that the fact that they are based off of the mythological
centaur. That one, rather common sense, fact is really not enough to establish notability, and the coverage about them in non-primary sources appears to be too trivial to pass the
WP:GNG. As with many of the other well-known mythological creatures, there is a expansive
in popular culture article where this version is already mentioned, so a possibly redirect after deletion may be possible.
Rorshacma (
talk)
23:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, Article fails
WP:GNG, the non-primary sources do not provide anything more than passing mentions, and are mostly used to source a list of appearances in various Dungeons and Dragons media.
Devonian Wombat (
talk)
03:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss where to redirect or merge to, if anywhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
So far the discussion was if there is enough treatment in secondary sources for the subject to be notable on its own. But as there is content based on primary and reliable secondary sources, how can there be nothing to preserve?
Daranios (
talk)
16:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
If these reliable secondary sources do not actually state anything other than in-universe information, "This monster appeared in this work" and other variants of passing mentions they do not create information that is necessary to preserve. I mean, the information that the Centaur appeared in Tall Tales of the Wee Folk is not going to contribute anything to any other article, so there is no reason to merge it.
Devonian Wombat (
talk)
20:44, 21 January 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.
I do not even see anything that would amount to even a claim to notability--the nearest is vice chair of a branch of one of the less notable 20th century organizations in the field. DGG (
talk )
07:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
She was notable in that she was a Scottish Suffragette.
Clareleethompson
A large number of women were Scottish suffragettes, although most suffragettes were not notable. Just as most political activists today are not notable. Wikipedia rules clearly require that notability must be established by finding reliable, secondary sources that demonstrate notability and adding them to the article.
IceFishing (
talk)
16:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
so, as I mentioned, had she been the chair of the Scottish branch of her organization , I would not have challenged the article; but she was only vice-chair. What we should be doing to expand coverage of notable women (and men) is to look for sources for the heads of national organizations, and see what we can find for them, or at least make a list. We normally do consider the heads of major national organizations in each field to be notable . DGG (
talk )
16:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the challenge to improve the article! Have added a number of references, and looking for more. She was at one time the chair, honorary secretary of, and organiser for the Women's Freedom League in Glasgow.
Clareleethompson
Here's the thing. All of the sources except one come from the house organ of the Women's Freedom League, making them primary sources. The only one that doesn't is from The Glasgow Herald, but it is not an obituary by the newspaper staff, but, rather it is a letter from someone who knew McLelland and therefore also a primary source,
IceFishing (
talk)
13:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Do you have access to newspaper archives from the time she was McClelland was active? There could be write-ups of her/the organization's activities. Are there any books that cover the suffrage movement in Glasgow?
DiamondRemley39 (
talk)
13:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Alas this subject doesn't meet general notability guidelines. I can't find anything - maybe passing mentions. Even the references in the article appear to be passing mentions, just a guess. I don't mind primary sources, just mentioning the subject or saying that the person was a member of a group or supported an effort isn't enough. Other suffragettes have reliable secondary source coverage. Sadly not every feminist gets a Wikipedia article!
Missvain (
talk)
21:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - I cannot find a mention of her in the 1995 version of A Guide Cause - The Women's Suffrage Movement in Scotland, by Leah Leneman which is usually regarded as the main history of the suffragettes in Scotland, which would make me concerned about notability. That said it is possible that since Leneman's death a more recent researcher has uncovered material to suggest she was significant in the movement, but without that I think it is difficult to argue for keep based on her work as a suffragette (which is a pity as I am always reluctant to see article about female activists being deleted).
Dunarc (
talk)
23:53, 21 January 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.
This entire article is an advertisement that has been marked as such for more than five years. I started trimming it, but then realized it has no reliable sources. I searched for some, but can't find anything other than directory listings and passing mentions. It's time to delete this ad. —Torchiesttalkedits04:40, 20 January 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.
Make it a draft, I think what's on there can be kept, but it shouldn't be lost forever. I agree that there really isn't enough info about him on the page and people haven't worked on it fully yet, which is why the article doesn't look good enough to be published on mainspace. Changing it to a draft temporarily will ensure that what's in the article now can be added onto and expanded with more info so it can then be put back on later. (Similar to what happened to the Tom Hessert article.) It should be noted that while I was the one who put in his East Series results the other day, I did not create the Chuck Buchanan Jr. article. It was created back in March 2018 if you look at the edit history. I hope that it will just become a draft and not completely deleted. Thanks.
Cavanaughs (
talk)
04:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Cavanaughsreply
Dear Willsome, I just edited the article to the extent that it looks complete enough. Please read it when you can. It now talks in detail about his K&N East Series career (the series he has primarily driven in) as well as Trucks. There were previously just two sentences about him in the whole article in the "racing career" section and now there's way more than that. Do you think we should keep it in mainspace or move it as a draft? It's your call since you're the expert.
Cavanaughs (
talk)
21:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Cavanaughsreply
Comment While it’s really the closing admin’s call and not my call, I’d support draftifying it. Almost all of the content added is unsourced and the portions that were had sources that merely gave a passing mention, not significant coverage. If others still think there may be sources out there that satisfy GNG, they can work on it in the draftspace, provided it goes through a proper review process and doesn’t circumvent the AFC process.
Willsome429 (
say hey or
see my edits!)
16:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete or Userify if one of the above editors wants to preserve it for future expansion. Even after the attempts to provide refs above, this is still almost entirely sourced to simple database entries. Since this is a part-time semi-professional that self-funds their racing, that is not surprising. At this stage in their career, the chances that they will obtain substantial notability are fairly slim.
Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)20:32, 28 January 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.
Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NGRIDIRON. Cannot find any evidence that Hicks played in the Arena Football League for the Sharks, and his ArenaFan stats
page is blank. According to
this, he had a run-of-the-mill two-year career at FCS Tennessee-Martin. Could not find any significant coverage after multiple searches. Eagles24/7(C)03:53, 20 January 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 Played for Division I FBS Cincinnati, but collegiate-level offensive lineman (in the absence of a major award such as All-America honors) rarely receive the type of significant coverage required to pass
WP:GNG. El-Amin appears to be no exception. The most "in-depth" coverage turned up by my searches relates to his 2007 arrest for felonious assault (e.g.,
here,
here), and such coverage is subject to discount on
WP:BLP1E grounds.
Cbl62 (
talk)
02:22, 21 January 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.
Fails
WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and is an unnecessary content fork. It is not common practice to have pages that are just stat listing for individual players, and since some of this is more advanced stats, like a performance breakdown per opponent, I think a merge to
Babar Azam would give the stats undue content weight. An external link to the relevant stats page, like how we link to Baseball-Reference to baseball players' stats, would suffice in this situation.
Hog Farm (
talk)
02:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - this is horrendous. It fails just about every criteria for what wikipedia is about, has no realistic notability and is either a direct copy from stats websites or original research based on those statistics.
Blue Square Thing (
talk)
06:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
User:Hog Farm - Of course not. That's because I invented the term just now. Just discuss the article, and this AFD and the MFD link back to each other, and let the closer deal with the MFD in the same way as the AFD. If we agree that this article can be sent to the
bit bucket, then the draft can go in with it.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
22:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Hog Farm, Where were they created first, at
Babar Azam or this article? That matters in terms of "redirect" or "delete." I realize that the stats were moved per
WP:NOTSTATS, though that isn't a firm rule. It's case-by-case based on the subject area editors. I've seen lots of articles with stats in them. If the subject area editors have a
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to include, they can be included. Nevertheless, that's really neither here nor there. What matters if the stats, while not in the current iteration of
Babar Azam, were added to this article, then my !vote is redirect/dual merge. Otherwise, if they were copied to this article, delete is the correct result. I maintain that
Draft:Babar Azam Statistics can survive irrespective of this
AfD as to delete it would be inordinately
BITEy and there are no notability guidelines in draft space.
Doug MehusT·C22:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)reply
This article was only created after the information was added to the main article twice and removed each time (by me). Unless there is clear consensus to include them at
WP:CRIC I'd do the same if they were added again.
Spike 'em (
talk)
21:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Spike 'em, Okay, then delete is fine for this article. However, know that one does not need to obtain consensus for inclusion at
WP:CRIC because, frankly, local consensus can exist, and does exist, on many, many articles that favour the inclusion of sports statistics.
Doug MehusT·C22:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Dmehus: I think the issue is less getting a consensus to have the stats, but more that an entire article containing literally only unexplained statistics goes against a lot of what Wikipedia is not. Also, the way the statistics are set up suggests that they are either
WP:OR or just copied straight off of some other website, both of which would likely be innapropriate for the only content in an article. I personally have no opinion on having some of these stats in the Babar Azam article, but I feel like having a page solely for publishing these stats is not policy-based.
Hog Farm (
talk)
23:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Hog Farm, Using statistics from one or more websites, provided it's not a wholesale cut-and-paste, is entirely appropriate, as long inline citations are provided to the applicable websites to attribute to the source. It wouldn't be
WP:OR if these statistics were reliably sourced, but in terms of whether it's appropriate, what I'm talking about is for junior or even NHL hockey teams and the like whereby, as part of a section of the hockey team's article, we include a table of the team's performance by year. It's not giving undue weight to the statistics. Nevertheless, it sounds like we're more or less on the same page here.
Doug MehusT·C23:46, 26 January 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. County commissioner is not an "inherently" notable role under
WP:NPOL, and single-sourcing the commissioner's existence to the county commission's own
primary source meeting minutes is not how you make a county commissioner notable enough to be considered special — at the local level of government, the notability test is the ability to write a substantive article, referenced to a significant volume of
reliable source coverage about him in media, that demonstrates his political importance, and is not just automatically passed by everybody who can show "staff" content on the self-published website of their own employer. I should note that at one time there was a longer article that made additional notability claims beyond county commissioner alone, namely his status as a published writer and cohost of a television reality show, but it was also based entirely on primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things rather than any evidence of coverage about him — so it wasn't making a stronger case for his notability on those grounds either, and was converted into a redirect to the show last year before being rewritten in this form within the past 24 hours.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:07, 20 January 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.
Fake sources: vernamagazine.com, apstersmedia.com, timebulletin.com are fake websites, operated by the same company that claims to be located at 445 E Ohio Street, Unit 2708 Chicago, IL, as do at least 60 other "news sites". A list is available at
/info/en/?search=User:Vexations/Fake_sources The one source that has a bit more credibility, timesofindia.indiatimes.com only credits a photu by Munna, but does not actually say anything about him. An photogallery of his famous wedding guests in photogallery.indiatimes.com doesn't have much to say about him either.
Vexations (
talk)
02:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. Can you expand on why you find the sources vernamagazine.com, apstersmedia.com, timebulletin.com to be unreliable? Being located at the same physical address does not seem like a clear indicator of being "fake". I don't see anything about the sites on
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard which is the standard venue to make this sort of determination.
BenKuykendall (
talk)
02:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: It seems that most of the people who voted delete needs to check again, there are enough reliable news sources from
The Times Bulletin,
International Business Times,
Times of India and several others on internet. He is a photographer, where you can't find everyday news coverage, however I am surprised to find that it is not even considered as to pass
WP:GNG. There cant be a different criteria when it comes to photographer, very easily pass GNG and ANYBIO.
Gandharraj (
talk)
04:49, 25 January 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.
Not seeing what makes this pass
WP:GNG/
WP:NCOMPANY. There is some coverage, but mostly in passing/press releases/local (ex.
[59]).
WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. On the other hand, it's a company with 200+ year history, and it could be notable - if we can find some decent coverage. My BEFORE failed, not seeing anything in books/scholar that goes beyond 2-3 sentences :( Maybe there is something more in
[60] but I can't get full access to this (do note, in either case: "The modern Ames True Temper was formed in 1999 when Ames, founded in 1774, and True
Temper, founded in 1809, were combined by their parent at the time, US Industries Inc "). A merger to
Griffon_Corporation#The_AMES_Companies could be a valid option here as well. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here22:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. I think that this is the same "True Temper" that was the brand of tubes for (steel) bicycle frames. Other major brands are
Reynolds and
Columbus; and googling for the three brands together brings up a lot of talk of True Temper and particularly of its demise. Of course, blog entries, forum chitchat and the like may not be the stuff of WP articles, but it does all suggest that something is there. I'll mention this AfD at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling. --
Hoary (
talk)
22:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Seeing as 2 weeks later, we have failed to turn up any reliable sources, I don't believe the company is notable. Of course, if someone presents new sources, I am willing to reconsider.
BenKuykendall (
talk)
02:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep It's real, an old, longstanding manufacturing firm in need of an editor with the time and access to sources - which are readily visible in searches I just ran.
IceFishing (
talk)
23:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep There appears to be numerous references that meet the requirements for establishing notability. I've linked to two books above and there's more.
HighKing++ 18:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)reply
The infobox already has a list of predecessor names, article needs an upgrade, which can start by moving this to the current corporate name. There really is no argument for deletion. It's just another article in need of an editor.
IceFishing (
talk)
21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)reply
We have sources. They're not optimal, but they're not negligible. So either keep, whether under its current title or as "Ames Companies"; or somehow merge it with
Ames Manufacturing Company or with
Ames Shovel Shop; or merge all three. (If the first among these options, we can probably ignore the "The" and we can certainly ignore the vanity capitalization within "The AMES Companies".) Which among these would be the best choice is something that I leave to editors far more experienced in US corporate histories than I am. --
Hoary (
talk)
23:09, 23 January 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 niche gathering. No sources in the article, and my own searching only turned up a few blogs, their own website, and similar non-
WP:RS. One comment from
the first AfD was, Wait for additional sourcing. Fourteen years later, still waiting. --
RoySmith(talk)01:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - I was unable to uncover anything of value in my search. Perhaps there is a non-English source or two (or three...four...) that are out there. I'm happy to reconsider if there are.
Missvain (
talk)
21:55, 21 January 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 article has had no reliable sources in the 13 years of its existence. I tried searching online for sources and could find nothing better than tabloid coverage to the tune of "you wouldn't BELIEVE what this former contestant looks like now". signed, Rosguilltalk01:12, 20 January 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.
Neutral: I'll try to be neutral here. I don't think media coverage tends to be promotional here. Pulse Nigeria and PN News Nigeria are independent media sources. WP:TOOSOON may apply however.
Lunar Clock (
talk)
05:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment from Nominator - I won't
bludgeon the process, but the voters above have missed an important point. The sources mentioning Mr. Arole, including those already in the article, may very well be reliable sources in themselves. However, they have all mentioned him in very brief and introductory ways, pretty much simply announcing that he
exists with no further in-depth analysis of anything he may have accomplished. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)13:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Doomsdayer520 I don’t even know why I bother with this AFD as I’m not even the author of the article but in the spirit of fairness imho he does qualify. Can you not see how subject of article qualifies for inclusion under #1 & #2 of
WP:ENT ??
Celestina007 (
talk)
00:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)reply
If you don't think you should bother with it then don't. I have also already made my argument and will let the community discussion take its course because I don't have to look at this man's article ever again. But since people are pinging me and demanding more comments, my argument is that his coverage is trivial even though it may well be in reliable sources. See
WP:GNG, which says a topic must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", while "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention..." ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)21:00, 22 January 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, and promotional. He does not meet WP:PROF--his most cited paper has only 29 references, and his other publications are cited by fewer than 10 papers. His books are self-published, and not even in WorldCat. He is president of only local specialized societies.
Delete Did not pass my source check - fails GNG. This article was conveniently created after he announced he was running for local office. So, fails politician guidelines, too.
Missvain (
talk)
19:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Advertising content can be re-written. The fact that he won Kenneth J. Douglas Award for Excellence should be considered to establish notability.
KartikeyaS343 (
talk)
05:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete subject fails all the notability standards already brought up. I also cannot seem to find any independent coverage indicating that the Kenneth J. Douglas Award for Excellence is significant enough to indicate any sort of notability. Best,
GPL93 (
talk)
17:34, 27 January 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 nominator's comments. I could not find much in terms of coverage from third-party, reliable sources, but the title is rather generic so that makes it a little more difficult.
Aoba47 (
talk)
05:33, 21 January 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.
Apparent essay with possible
WP:SYNTH issues. There may be something to work with here, but it would likely need a
WP:TNT treatment to get it from a research paper style to an encyclopedic article. If I'm wrong and this sort of essay-like article is acceptable under guidelines, I will withdraw this nomination.
Hog Farm (
talk)
21:35, 20 January 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.
Possibly could have been a speedy deletion, but as it went through the AfC process, decided on a full AfD. Cannot find anything in the sources here or online to merit an article.
Edwardx (
talk)
21:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - (Beware of other people of the same name when searching.) This article is clearly an attempt at promotion, and not a very good one at that. Full of non-notable personal trivia that even fans would find unnecessary. When I was a kid I lived with my mom too, but that doesn't mean I need to say it in an encyclopedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)21:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:TNT,
WP:MILL,
WP:TOOSOON,
WP:SIGCOV,
WP:NOTRESUME,
WP:SPAM. This page is such a mess that it can't be turned into a real article. This is very clearly an ordinary model at the start of their career. There is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources; a few spreads is not enough. In 2020, everybody knows what a resume is and spam is; I can not longer
assume good faith.
Bearian (
talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 - The article has been nominated for CSD G12 for copyright violation. I do not know if two different deletion tags can be placed on the same article!
Sambhil32 (
talk)
20:44, 20 January 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. This song may be notable, but the creators of the article haven't explained what it's about except by allusion. The song, which is in
Scots rather than English, needs to be put in context by the article to make sense to most readers. --
Metropolitan90(talk)02:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep This was once an extremely popular dance tune. It is widely included in anthologies visible in a google books search and in searches of old newspapers. Even a quick search reveals that it continues to be played in folk dancing and folk music circles.
IceFishing (
talk)
19:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. While there were no music charts at the time this was popular, this certainly would have made the cut. And for two centuries. A good example of enduring notability.
Metropolitan90 makes a good point, the article should be saved and lyrics pruned and replaced with some contextualization. Let me see what I can do.
Ifnord (
talk)
21:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. I can see that there have already been some improvements to the article. One thing that needs to be addressed is when the song was written. From what I can find, Lady Nairne didn't start writing songs until after
Charles Edward Stuart was dead, which means that the song was not about a contemporary issue but was more a retrospective on the past. --
Metropolitan90(talk)02:55, 22 January 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. If there is a source to cite, the relevant info could be added to the club article and this title re-created as a redirect.
RL0919 (
talk)
21:42, 27 January 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. From the descriptions in the articles, it does seem that this is a separate winery from Freixenet, just with common owners, so not redirecting at this time. If that information is inaccurate (hard to say without sources) and this is a subsidiary or brand of Freixenet, then a redirect could be created, but the sourced information should be in the target article first.
RL0919 (
talk)
21:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect – I write about wine and just a few passing mentions at this point and primarily press releases/promo content is all I could find. Please consider redirecting to the company that owns them -
Freixenet.
Missvain (
talk)
20:31, 21 January 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.
Weak Keep: Not an overly notable actress, but taking into account her work directing/writing/producing short films, I think there is enough to sustain an article.
Dflaw4 (
talk)
13:31, 26 January 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.
Fails
WP:BASIC,
WP:ANYBIO, and
WP:CREATIVE. Unable to locate significant biographical details in secondary sources. Most of the sources cited in the article are reviews of her play How To Load A Musket, with only short biographies of this person. Some sources cited don't even mention here.
Magnolia677 (
talk)
18:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep All of the cited sources do mention her, and enable reliable sourcing of her childhood, education, and acting career. There are reviews of her acting that can be added. However, the reason why I created this article is her play How to Load a Musket which I believe passes
WP:AUTHOR. 3. "The person has created... (a work that) ha(s) been the primary subject... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."
IceFishing (
talk)
18:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Time Out (magazine), New York Edition, published a signed review, which is certainly significant.
History News Network is where professional historians review books, films, plays about history. I just added reviews of a performance of here in a revival of a
George Bernard Shaw play by
Terry Teachout in the
Wall Street Journal and by a reviewer for the
New York Times. More such review can be added. She has been performing on New York stages and reviews of her performances are easy to find in the New York papers.
User:Magnolia677, is this sufficient, or would you like me to add reviews of more of her stage appearances? There have been many. This was, however, as far as I know, the first play that she has written.
IceFishing (
talk)
19:00, 20 January 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. MathSciNet lists 17 publications for him, and checking the same titles in Google Scholar found citation counts of 64, 61, 33, 26, 18, ... for an
h-index of 8. Mathematics in general is a low-citation field but numerical PDEs (his area) isn't, and this isn't enough to convince me of a pass of
WP:PROF#C1. In any case, most of the article is unsourced content about his administrative work, which as department chair is too low-level for
WP:PROF#C6 (that's for heads of entire universities). I tried searching for better sources but it's made difficult by the commonness of his name and I didn't find much. In particular the in-depth sources at
[1],
[2], and
[3] appear to be about three different other people. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
20:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete What is in the article doesn't demonstrate notability, and I couldn't find much more about him beyond his PhD thesis. He doesn't appear to be at Hazara U any more. That he has a common name that he has transliterated in several different ways definitely makes it more difficult to search for him. Comment that I suspect the Google Scholar profile found by
David Eppstein to also be the wrong Muhammed Yousuf, as the subject of this article works in the history of math (rather than in numerical pdes).
Russ Woodroofe (
talk)
13:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:SIGCOV. Even if a professor has had a lot of citations, which I do not concede, but we can't find any reliable sources, then an article can't be created.
Bearian (
talk)
15:05, 27 January 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 article currently discusses a Dungeons & Dragons creature with no significant coverage in non-primary sources. However, "weretiger" is also an Asian mythological creature, which is discussed at the
werecat article.
Were-Tiger currently redirects to there, so if this article gets deleted, it should be also redirected there.
Not a very active user (
talk)
17:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete & Redirect to
werecat, per nom. The D&D version is not notable, with no reliable, secondary sources discussing it in any meaningful manner. The actual mythological version is notable, and has an appropriate article to redirect this to. Looking at the article history, it would appear that this was actually initially created as a redirect to the notable mythological topic, before being hijacked and re-purposed by anonymous IP editors to be about this non-notable fictional variant, and constantly edit-warred by more IP editors whenever someone attempted to restore it to its actual useful purpose. So, this non-notable D&D cruft should be deleted, to prevent any more IP reverts, and then the redirect to
werecat should be recreated.
Rorshacma (
talk)
18:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete and Redirect to
Werecat. Article is sourced entirely to primary sources, and should be deleted before redirecting to prevent possible recreation as has happened in this article and others.
Devonian Wombat (
talk)
05:51, 24 January 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 keep. It seems like not all the sources presented as proof of notability have been rebutted, although it's a weakish "keep" conclusion.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
11:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Originally nominated for PROD with the justification There doesn't appear to be any coverage in independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG, possibly just WP:TOOSOON. The initial editor removed PROD and provided two additional sources, but neither of them has significant coverage of the subject (in fact, neither of them even directly refer to it by name). signed, Rosguilltalk20:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: The nomination says: two additional sources were added, but neither of them has significant coverage of the subject (in fact, neither of them even directly refer to it by name).. Well when I check out one of those sources
[4] I see CECPQ2 thoroughly discussed during it. Now the chance of me using remembering SSL is
Secure Sockets Layer is minimal but just possible; remembering TLS is Transport Layer Security; or even the difference between them is minimal and I'd probably simply say TLS/SSL if I needed write something down about it. My chance of remembering CECPQ2 is Combined Elliptic-Curve and Post-Quantum 2 and quite frankly to mention the latter in most places might to some I might know might turn the sir blue. The key point is the nomination has in my view falsely scummered the document and misled the AfD by claiming the document did not discuss the subject; which it clearly does. The nomination did not even discuss any thoughts of merging to
CECPQ1 ... and I would oppose that at this stage .... maybe an expert might do it later.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
11:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Djm-leighpark, the source you linked above is one of the ones that was originally in the article before I nominated for PROD; the issue with that source is that it is not independent, as it is written by one of the researchers involved in developing CECPQ2. The two sources that were added post-PROD were
[5] and
[6]. Maybe there's something in there that I wasn't able to understand, but I would be amazed if you can find evidence that they discuss the subject in detail there. signed, Rosguilltalk16:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Well having had a look at [7] again carefully I'd have to agree with you on Langley. The wonder of imprecise citations being made a little better slipping me up. Apolgoies and thanks for setting that out. There's better than that on Scholar and to some extent its the sheer waste of my trawling through the lot ... and the issue of no consideration of the merge remains in all events. Some like
[8] (P.18) would be better choice to stand up.
[9] and (
[10]) are better choices. Therefore I remain keep.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
18:01, 23 January 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 - The film is notable but the director is not. Notability can not be inherited. It seems the page was created for promoting this person.
Sambhil32 (
talk)
20:48, 20 January 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 person seems to be on the cusp of notability, and the article has many sources- which don't really hold up to scrutiny. Ignoring what seem to be some low level promotion websites, the other citations are ted talks, the times of India parroting those Ted talks, and bad sources like the Deccan Herald, which has
copied from us before. The forbes reference, which appeared promising,
is just a few sentences, and the Chicago Tribune article is by a community contributor. If there were 3 or so more articles like the forbes one, I might keep, but those sources are not there.
💴Money💶💵emoji💷Talk💸Help out at CCI!03:26, 25 January 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, Redirect or merge - I'm willing to give the article a chance, since Dapper Denver Dooley appeared in a number of Woody Woodpecker cartoons (and a Chilly Willy cartoon), but would also be Ok with a merge too. I think the only WW rivals most people really know are
Wally Walrus and
Buzz Buzzard (maybe
Gabby Gator}. Also, Woody's main cartoons known to people were from 1940-1955, late 1959-1962 and the last one released in theaters. DDD cartoons appearances were in a not-to-notable period.--
Halls4521 (
talk)
23:18, 17 January 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 believe that
WP:NORG would be the appropriate criteria, rather than
WP:NMG for the label, because it's a company/organization rather than a label or a musician and it appears that this label does not satisfy the notability for organizations.
Graywalls (
talk)
19:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. Bands and musical ensembles are companies/organizations as well, but we recognize
WP:MUSIC - exclusively - as the criterion for judging their notability over
WP:CORP, and I have long argued that record labels should be treated the same. WP:MUSIC provides the only language in any notability guideline specifically addressing record labels, and Greyday meets its suggestion of "one of the more important indie labels".
Chubbles (
talk)
14:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)reply
That's from eight years ago, and there were several subsequent discussions, some of which I started. At one point we were close to having actual enumerated criteria at NMUSIC, but the conversation got bogged down on a rather trivial technicality, and I abandoned the project - to my chagrin, as this keeps coming up at AfD over and over and over. In any case, none of this suggests we should ignore NMUSIC, and certainly, people who are interested in music are, in general, going to be better judges of what musical content to include than people who are interested in corporations and organizations.
Chubbles (
talk)
14:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Chubbles:, BMG, Warner, Sony Music, etc are not "bands", they're organizations/corporations. Where are you finding any Wikipedia guidelines references indicating that recording companies should be evaluated under the same categories as bands?
Graywalls (
talk)
23:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I am not claiming that recording companies are bands. I'm merely pointing out that bands and ensembles unquestionably would fall under
WP:CORP as "a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose", but we (rightfully) never (ever! in my entire time here) use that yardstick to decide their notability.
Chubbles (
talk)
14:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Bearian: I'm not sure I follow. There are also numerous bands that have articles. I might have concerns that the articles that exist are part of a walled garden, but just because several artists on a label are not notable (or not created yet) doesn't mean the label is not notable (my example would be
Falcon Records (Texas)). If a label has had significant impact on the careers of, say, seven notable artists, that is an indication of notability even if ten other artists on their roster never achieved a career trajectory that results in a blue link. I have NOT made up my mind that this is a notable record label, but the number of blue links seem to discount WP:MILL.
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions)14:51, 28 January 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 They are the acoustic guitar world's equivalent of Stradivariuses. Read the Lead: "generally recognized to the most desired, and highly valued, acoustic guitars ever made; in "American Guitars - An Illustrated History", author Tom Wheeler describes them as "among American guitar's irreplaceable treasures"". They are known as the "Holy Grail" to acoustic guitar collectors. Also read here:
Vintage Guitar Magazine: Classic Instruments: 1939 Martin D-45. This finishes with the sentence: "If there is any one flat-top steel-string vintage American guitar which can be viewed as a “holy grail” to collectors, the pre-World War II D-45 Martin is it." Just a note, you can buy an "ordinary" acoustic guitar for $450. One of these in top condition will cost you closer to $450,000. There are no production acoustic guitars (vintage, desirable) (other than one-offs with celebrity association) that are worth more.
Tony 1212 (
talk)
20:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Reply to above statement. Thanks for the response Clarityfiend... the
Martin D-45 is a production model today that you can buy off the shelf, and has been made in a number of variants since its re-introduction in 1968. The 91 pre-war ones are a special set in my opinion and that of most other interested parties. Of course this list could be incorporated into the genral D-45 page but my view is that it is rather different in slant and would also make that page a bit long...
I refer to the WP notability criteria linked above:
Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines.
Some quotes from "independent reliable sources" showing that they are typically discussed as a set:
Keep - as explained above, these are like Stradivariuses of the guitar world. Not quite literally, but certainly enough to pass
WP:LISTN. Adding on, from
Fretboard Journal (in the December 2013 issue article
Catch of the Day: 1941 Martin D-45) (emphasis added): “As most guitar geeks know, Martin only made 91 prewar D-45s, which makes this instrument a very rare bird, indeed.” This is an assertion in a notable publication that the exact number of prewar D-45s is well known among guitar enthusiasts! This is a rare and well known historical set of acoustic instruments, this page list certainly has encyclopedic value as it details that set.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
05:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Totally concur with User:Shelbystripes. Here is another quote, this time from a respected reference book: "History of the American Guitar: 1833 to the Present Day" by Tony Bacon (ISBN 1476856389, 9781476856384): "Only 91 pre-war D-45s were made, and in the view of many players and collectors they are among the highest quality, best sounding guitars ever made. With so few in existence and with such wide knowledge of their almost magical quality, these superb, rare, and inevitably expensive instruments appear to follow the rules of supply and demand perfectly." Regards
Tony 1212 (
talk)
05:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep There are plenty of reliable sources for this very rare and valuable instrument. It is sought after by collectors. Per WP:LISTN we keep list like this.
Wm335td (
talk)
20:00, 20 January 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.
Thank you for educating me. I don't understand your rules so I will wait for a verdict. There is no money involved in the making of this page; nor, that I'm aware, in the presence of it.
Brofitable (
talk)
10:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I have added this in the citations because it shows, or purports to show "In 1947, the old monk Xuyun and Master Zhiding took a group photo in front of the Guangzhou Zoulu Mansion" and so this is evidence of a close relationship between the two figures.
A couple of new sources found. One of them inspires an edit which may be sensitive. Posting the candidate edit here, instead of on the article's talks page, for debate:
While notable for its innovative approach, the level of Jy Ding's legacy order's impact thus far may be a matter for further research. There are two institutions under the name "Zen Buddhist Order of Hsu Yun" [1][2][3], although there is some indication that duplication should not be presumed to mean there is any dispute as to which of these is the rightful holder of that name[4].
Now that I understand how dharma names are given in this lineage, and have access to the relevant tonsure poem, I was able to conduct a better web search here, for
Chuan zhi, and for
Hsu Yun Temple. Several new citations added to each.
Zenothing (
talk)
11:52, 18 January 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 fails to establish notability. The editor who removed the PROD cited two sources. I can seem to only access one of them, but "Television Cartoon Shows: An Illustrated Encyclopedia" is a trivial mention that calls the character "Scooby Doo-ish" and nothing else relevant. I'm doubtful that the character has anything more than passing mentions related to the show from what I can see.
TTN (
talk)
15:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge or Redirect - He could possibly be merged to
Wendy and Marvin if people think that article looks salvageable (taking a quick glance at it shows it has similar sourcing problems, but I haven't done a in-depth look as its not the article under nomination). If not, it should probably be Redirected to the main
Super Friends article, where he is already mentioned.
Rorshacma (
talk)
16:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Update - Even with the newly added sources, I still don't see this meeting the threshold for an independent article. Most of the added references are either complete plot summary (the "Back Issue!" source is literally just a long, straight recap of an issue of a comic he appeared in) or very brief coverage (the "Saturday Morning Fever" book only mentions him in a couple of sentences, and mostly just to describe what he was). I still think that merging to one of the broader articles is the better option here.
Rorshacma (
talk)
16:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)reply
What's wrong with the way it is? If anything it just needs updated. Wonder Dog has been in a lot of other things since this was last updated. Why delete it? That makes no sense. --
Noah Tall (
talk)
20:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
It currently fails
WP:GNG. It needs real world information from reliable sources. The one source added to the article seems to be trivial coverage and the others are primary.
TTN (
talk)
21:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. I agree with the statement above that this simply needs to be updated, not deleted. The article includes reliable sources now and there are others available that could be added... —
HunterKahn12:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: I've added some sources so far, and there's another that I'm going to add -- The Ultimate Super Friends Companion, vol 1: The 1970s -- which I'll be able to get my hands on in a couple days. --
Toughpigs (
talk)
13:37, 14 January 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. None of the keep or merge rationales provided any reasons why and what should be merged, but I'll keep the backlinks intact in case someone wants to create a redirect to a list. –
sgeurekat•
c14:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - The D&D specific version of the creature does not have any sort of coverage in reliable, secondary sources that would allow it to pass the
WP:GNG. There are plenty of results that establish that, yes,
WP:ITEXISTS, but nothing that would support an independent article. The only sources being used currently are game books and primary sources. Merging to
hobgoblin, per Cas Liber, could be possible, but given the utter lack of reliable sources, I would not recommend it. It should probably be noted that the multitude of "Keep" votes above are entirely
WP:JUSTAVOTE, and should be discounted appropriately, and I find it weird that so many people continue to try this tactic.
Rorshacma (
talk)
16:56, 19 January 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. None of the keep or merge rationales provided any reasons why and what should be merged (
WP:JUSTAVOTE), but I'll keep the backlinks intact in case someone wants to create a redirect to a list. –
sgeurekat•
c14:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Like many of the other D&D creatures based on well-known mythological creatures, there are really no sources that give this particular version any notability. All available sources regarding this particular incarnation are either primary, in-universe only, or trivial mentions that only establish that
WP:ITEXISTS but little else.
Rorshacma (
talk)
17:19, 13 January 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.
Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Article was generated from GNIS which lists many small ranches and other locations as "populated places" even though they don't meet our notability standards. (Split from previous batch AfD) –
dlthewave☎16:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Here is a blurb in AZ Highways magazine from 1947: Found inside: "COYOTE BASIN RANCH: Operated as summer mountain lodge by owners of Soda Springs Ranch. 5 miles from ... It is convenient to the Arizona Snow Bowl, and in season, activities include riding, fishing, hunting, swimming and ice skating." Does not appear to be any kind of community, one of many camps/lodges throughout AZ.
MB02:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment This was actually a working ranch which allowed guests, so a combination ranch/resort. It's been written up in Duncan Hines Vacation travel guides in the '50s
[11] and there's lots of rough coverage, maybe not enough for
WP:GNG. It wouldn't pass
WP:GEOLAND #1, but might pass GNG with some research.
SportingFlyerT·C06:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Do not merge because it would be ridiculous to give details of a former run-of-the mill farm in a county article. If we did that for every ranch and former ranch in the county we'd also violate
WP:NOTDIR. ----
Pontificalibus19:01, 22 January 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.
Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No evidence that this is or was a notable populated place. (Split from previous batch AfD) –
dlthewave☎16:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Yes, this is a gravel pit, as well as a former stop on the railroad.
GNIS] even shows there was once a building there it. Certainly not a populated place. Just another minor stop on the railroad best listed in
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway if that were ever expanded sufficiently.
MB02:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge with
Winona, Arizona. While this seems to refer to an area located at Darling Cinder Pit, it is not clear that Darling was a settlement. The renaming of Winona station to Darling confuses matters. It would be least confusing to cover everything in the Winona article.----
Pontificalibus14:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete LOL at 7&6=thirteen's attempt to refbomb the article: Timeanddate.com machine-importing all the coordinates in the GNIS does not mean "
somebody considers this to be a place" (as if a human wrote
[15] haha), and the Darling Cinder Pit being part of the hemisphere that can see the
July 2020 lunar eclipse isn't notable. Redirect to Winona is fine, looks like the cinder pit is still in use.
Reywas92Talk20:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I think the most frustrating thing is there's a chance this article could pass
WP:GNG as a non-populated place separate from Winona as an article on the cinder pit, as it has indeed been written about, but now we've got a source-bombed article, and there's only about one or two of those sources which come close to demonstrating notability under GNG (and even with the new sources, the article currently doesn't include the clipping I found which makes clear Darling is just the railroad's name for the Winona station/siding.)
SportingFlyerT·C03:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)reply
We can
split this to
Darling Cinder Pit per
this source which states "Arizona is #1 cinder producer in the country with an annual production of about 1 million tons. Superlite's Darling Cinder Pit is the largest producer in the state." We currently don't have any articles on cinder mines, so this would be a good place to start. It passes
WP:GNG. Then
Darling, Arizona could redirect to
Winona, Arizona, where the station name and pit are mentioned in the lead. ----
Pontificalibus12:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)reply
These are good ideas. Although Darling (or the cinder pit) is a continual important point on the railroad. I still have lots of sources to add concerning that. Where that material winds up (
False choice?
WP:Not paper so there could be some duplication) could be an issue.
Of course, there is a problem with your ruthlessly trimming of
WP:RS discussion of Darling, Arizona. It looks like you are trying to skew the result in the pending AFD, where we are at issue about
WP:GNG. Some of you have talked about "ref bombs"; I am talking about your 'ref bombing.' 7&6=thirteen (
☎)14:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Sources for what? Darling is not a populated place. We know Darling Cinder Pit is notable, and
Winona's railroad station which was renamed "Darling" is obviously mentioned by sources. However why should these two things share an article? Surely it makes more sense to mention the railroad activity at Winona's station in the Winona article, and then either have a separate article on the cinder pit, or also discuss that in the Winona article because that's the place where it's located.----
Pontificalibus17:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
The proper procedure probably needs to be that this article gets moved to Darling Cinder Pit, and then
Darling, Arizona gets redirected to
Winona, Arizona, which would then be edited to have a link to the cinder pit. Keeping this outright as a populated place makes no sense given what we've identified here.
SportingFlyerT·C11:24, 19 January 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.
Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No evidence that this is or was a notable populated place. (Split from previous batch AfD) –
dlthewave☎16:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, no evidence this was a populated place.
GNIS does have a separate entry for a station building, so this was indeed a stop on this old section of the ATSF. Per RFD on train stations, there was no consensus that every station is automatically notable, so this again needs to meet GNG. Certainly reasonable to mention in
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway and redirect, but that article doesn't currently get into this level of detail.
MB01:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment If we could add and redirect this to a list of Atchison & Topeka stations in Arizona, that'd be the best overall result so we don't lose the place name but don't give it its own article. I've been looking at maps from the Arizona library from the 1930s and Corva has buildings nearby on the map, and a road to the settlement, but Daze, which is nearby, does not, and has no road.
SportingFlyerT·C07:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)reply
comment Older topo maps show that there used to be passing sidings here, so there was a "station" in that back far enough there would have been someone to deal with train orders and switches, but it doesn't imply that trains actually stopped here.
Mangoe (
talk)
21:06, 20 January 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.
Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No evidence that this is or was a notable populated place. (Split from previous batch AfD) –
dlthewave☎16:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and Reywas92, not a populated place or otherwise notable. A former named crossing of
Chevelon Creek. The creek article is another stub; theoretically it could be developed to include some info about this crossing/camp site if someone had the inclination and more sources. NN, not enough coverage for GNG/stand-alone article.
MB01:44, 14 January 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.
Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Appears to be an old ranch or homestead with no evidence of notability. (Split from previous batch AfD) –
dlthewave☎16:44, 13 January 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.
Article about a shortlived cable television channel, not
properly referenced as clearing either
WP:NMEDIA or
WP:GNG. This channel operated in a class of services that are exempt from having to have broadcast licenses, which means it isn't "inherently" notable under NMEDIA -- and it existed exclusively to broadcast
infomercials, which means there was nothing "inherently" notable about any of its programming either. But the sources here -- the CRTC's general exemption policy for this type of service (which predates this channel's existence by 19 years and thus fails to mention it at all), a glancing mention of its existence in a (deadlinked) piece about a competing service, and one very short blurb about its launch in an industry trade magazine -- is not enough to get it over GNG. The only source here that's contributing any notability points at all is the Media in Canada hit, but it's not contributing enough notability points in and of itself if it's the only notability-assisting source on offer.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete As much as I'd like an article for every network ever, networks like this, which used a loophole to air nothing but DRTV ad loops and infomercials otherwise ignored by 98% of the viewing public, just plain doesn't meet
WP:N. We have infomercial networks here, but they have something outstanding (like
OnTV4U's OTA distribution or like
Access Television Network, earned
WP:N based on angering hockey and basketball fans for their existence under a now well-shut loophole) which allow them that N. It just isn't found here since it was confined to an easily ignored channel space. Nate•(
chatter)01:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: the article has existed for 5+ years with no issues, the channel existed for about 3 years, there's 3 articles referencing it (I fixed the deadlink so they all work now), it was launched in millions of homes through Rogers Cable (one of the largest TV providers in Canada) and smaller systems such as V Media and Zazeem, it's a unique original brand (not like a local version of some international channel), I see no reason why it playing infomercials is not worthy of an article, and I see it has relevance by way of its connection to Evan Kosiner, the guy who launched the channel, has his own article, and its one of many companies he launched or tried to launch.
musimax. (
talk)
00:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC).reply
Comment That BLP article is a
WP:PROMO/
WP:RESUME quagmire (and none of his channels with CRTC approval ever came to the air) and deserves deletion or a complete
WP:TNTing (consider this a support for either). Rare that I say this on AFD, but hell no to any kind of merger with his article. Nate•(
chatter)01:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)reply
From
Wikipedia:NMEDIA, for a cable television channel "Cable television - Generally, national or regional cable channels are presumed notable. Public access cable stations are not presumed notable unless they serve a major city or a large regional area. For example, a statewide public access channel, or a channel for all of New York City could be presumed notable." So, this was a national channel with about 2 million subscribers from multiple distributors (Rogers, V Media, and Zazeen), as per the cited source in the article. Even if you were to label it as a lowly public access channel, with 2 million subs or more, I'd say that is objectively notable. When you look at the notability guidelines you sourced, there are 5 items: 1) Significant coverage, the media sources mentioned discuss the topic in detail and directly, and its not a trivial mention, and although its 2 articles, there is no mention about how many numbers it must be so I'd say, Yes, that ones met; 2) Reliable: both sources have editorial integrity and are independent from eachother and wrote their own separate articles, so Check that one off; 3) Sources: this is what the definition is "should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." As you can see in the article, there are multiple sources (2), they are secondary sources and provide objective research, and as the definition states, there need not be any specific number of sources, except multiple, of which 2 can count as multiple; 4) Independent of the subject: this excludes works produced by the article's subjects owner or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. As you can see from the article, the 2 sources are not owned or affiliated with BuyNow TV or themselves, and the articles are also not advertising, press releases, autobiographies, or from BuyNow TV's website, so thats another Check; and finally 5) Presumed: this one from what I can tell, just assures that
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and when you look at that definition, this article does not meet that definition either which is, it's not a summary-only descriptions of works, lyric database, excessive listings of unexplained statistics, or an exhaustive logs of software updates. So its a check on this one as well. So, in summary of all this.... BuyNow TV is an objective article that stands on the merits of itself by Wikipedias own standards and should be kept. If it meets Wikipedias own guidelines, then it should be an automatic Keep. [revote struck] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Musimax (
talk •
contribs)
NMEDIA explicitly states that TV channels are not exempted from having to get over GNG or CORPDEPTH just because they exist — the notability test is never just the things the article says, but the quality and depth and range of the references that can be shown to support the things it says. But I've already explained above why the references here are not cutting it: one is just the CRTC's general policy on this type of service, which does not mention this channel at all as it predates this channels existence by 19 years, and thus counts for nothing toward making this channel notable at all because it is not about this channel. A second source merely mentions this channel's existence in passing, in the process of being about a competing service owned by a different company, and thus counts for nothing toward making this channel notable at all because it is not about this channel. And the only source present here that is about this channel is a short blurb, not a substantive piece of coverage, and thus does not represent enough coverage to get this channel over the notability bar all by itself — even just a basic GNG pass requires more than just one source that's actually about the channel. It's true that GNG doesn't require a specific fixed number of sources, but it does require more than just one blurb. And again, NMEDIA does not grant television channels a free exemption from having to have sufficient sources to clear GNG just because they existed — NMEDIA very explicitly states, in fact, that the notability criteria for TV channels still requires reliable source coverage about the channel, and that television and radio broadcasters are not exempted from having to clear GNG just because they existed.
But also, please note that you are not allowed to "vote" more than once in an AFD discussion: you may comment as many times as you like, but your followup comments may not contain a bolded restatement of the "keep" vote you've already given.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I stand by all of the info I noted above, it meets all 5 notability standards. The info you mention about the CRTC article, that it doesn't mention the channel, is 19 years before the channel launched, and counting nothing towards the channel being reliable is all opinion. So what if its 19 years before the channel launched? Wikipedia has, from what I can tell, no rule on such timelines for references. It's relevant because it notes the channel is subject to this rule (even if not in name) and doesn't have a licence, unlike the majority of other Canadian channels which need one.
musimax. (
talk)
16:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)reply
And I stand by what I said, with the added bonus that NMEDIA backs me up. NMEDIA requires a media outlet to be the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to clear our notability standards — regardless of the topic, the notability test is never just the things the article says, but is always the quality of the sources that can be shown to support the things it says. It is entirely relevant that the CRTC decision dates from 19 years before this channel existed — because that fact means that source is not about this channel, and thus does not constitute evidence of this channel's notability. The rule is not that as long as the article has footnotes in it, the topic is automatically notable enough for inclusion here — to constitute support for a topic's notability, a source has to be about that topic, and sources which either (a) briefly mention the topic in the process of being about something else, or (b) don't mention the topic at all, but are present merely to verify a stray fact, are not support for a topic's notability. That is how notability works on here: a source only speaks to the notability of the topic in question if that source is directly about that topic.
Bearcat (
talk)
01:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I continue to support Bearcat's reasoning for deletion; NMEDIA and the fact this is an infomercial channel means by far nobody is going to write about it; there's nothing to write about here. And even if two million people were consistently watching this network day in and out (which would earn N based on 'why on earth are two million Canadians watching an infomercial channel?', but be nearly all negative press), we don't care about viewership overall; just about overall notability. It just doesn't have it. Nate•(
chatter)03:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep as the only feasible merger target has been deleted, and the information is undoubtedly encyclopedic. Notability is marginal, but for this type of page (as opposed to a BLP like the other one) there is good reason to keep the standard as low as policy permits, for the benefit of readers.
Modernponderer (
talk)
18:21, 25 January 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 This is a difficult one since it's a manufactured home community outside Bozeman. Articles like
[17] refer to it as being in Bozeman, and the addresses go to Bozeman, but it is an official US census-designated place (type it in
here) which I think probably qualifies for "legally defined populated place."
SportingFlyerT·C23:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete It's a manufactured home park with about 200 lots. The news article above calls it a neighborhood and as such needs to meet GNG under GEOLAND#2.
Census-designated places are defined for statistical purposes only.
MB00:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)reply
That is not a valid delete rationale. If you believe it falls under GEOLAND#2 then that mandates a merge: "information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it", which would be merge to
Gallatin County, Montana#Census-designated places.----
Pontificalibus08:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep, often legal definitions differ from popular definitions and this may be such a place. Meets
GEOLAND however and is still recognised as a place in general terminology. In cases like this
GNG is also arguably met due to
significant coverage existing is statistical listings such as
this. J947(
c), at
01:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)reply
WP:SIGCOV requires coverage in reliable sources, i.e. those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Is there any evidence that ourhero.in has a competent editorial team or employs any sort of fact-checking before republishing data mined from government sources? Dozens of sites function as GNIS/census mirrors or use their location data, but I wouldn't consider these to be significant coverage. –
dlthewave☎02:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)reply
My theory is that if they are entirely based off government sources so they are reliable but upon reflection since they are basically all copies of each other in different formats they only should count for one source.
GEOLAND should be enough for notability though. J947(
c), at
03:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep This is a distinct named populated place outwith the boundaries of Bozeman, it therefore doesn't fall under GEOLAND2 as a subdivision but GEOLAND1 as a legally recognized place. ----
Pontificalibus08:04, 19 January 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.
Clearly fails
WP:GNG. Also note
WP:NOTDIR. Very little is gained from an incomplete listing of potential ways that kids in school can make trouble. This is an encyclopedia, not reddit. In a
previous discussion, arguments along the lines of Everything on this page is real were made, including "I have been out of school for 25 years but have either been on the giving or receiving end of nearly all of the pranks." and "school pranks are well known and easily verifiable", however that is not reason enough to keep an article.
PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already?18:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I'd advocate delete largely because the entire history is constant addition of bullshit that then has to be removed. It's a magnet for idiots and adds nothing over what's in the
school prank article. Guy (
help!)
18:53, 13 January 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.
A article that heavily uses advertising language and has almost exclusively first-party sources. I cannot, after a bit of searching, find any evidence of notability (May be due to the fact it's overshadowed by another festival of the same name?), and as such it fails
WP:NEVENT.
MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (
talk)
20:41, 13 January 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 the author and sole editor of the article I have a rather clear COI and therefore won't formally vote either way here. However since this AfD I've tripled the article length with some more information to attempt to establish notability and a lot more references, although I'm aware it's still very much borderline, and there are absolutely a lot of weak and likely unnecessary references mixed in, I sometimes forget more is not always better. I do invite the original nominator to read it again to see if the additions help with any of the noted concerns. Understandable if not, as I said it's very borderline but I personally felt when creating the article it was enough to pass
WP:NCOMPANY. EoRdE6(
Come Talk to Me!)05:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak keep per
WP:BARE. Technically, this passes due to
WP:SIGCOV - ongoing and significant coverage in reliable sources. I have not !voted an outright keep because, from a neutral perspective, they do not seem to have done anything particularly notable.
Bearian (
talk)
22:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Reviewers: The article has been expanded and new sourcing added. Please review in your consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Missvain (
talk)
16:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment The only "update" since the !votes above has been to update the number of employees. No new references have been added. I stick with my original comment to Delete and I will add that
notability is not inherited, so while they may have been involved in high profile projects, not a single significant reference is written *about* this organization.
HighKing++ 12:52, 21 January 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 no consensus. Well, this is a complicated close. The key concern raised by the nomination is
WP:INDISCRIMINATE, i.e the list has no clear inclusion criteria and is a mostly arbitrary assembly of facts. There is also a concern that the list is "trivial" but that's not really a policy or guideline (
WP:TRIVIA is but from the discussion it's not clear that it would actually apply). The keep arguments are more numerous but they mostly do not address the delete arguments (with the exception of Andrew Davidson's arguments to keep), rather discussing
WP:LISTN which isn't at issue, stating that the topic's problems can be fixed without explaining why or calling the list "Interesting" without explaining how that invalidates the concerns raised by the delete camp. On balance, it doesn't seem like the delete argument clearly prevails over the keep one in terms of number or strength of argument, as there is enough uncertainty about whether the INDISCRIMINATE concern can be resolved w/o deletion. Thus this is a no consensus but perhaps closer to delete than to keep.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
11:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)reply
This article is an
an indiscriminate collection of information. For example, how does one decide which things to list for George Washington, who was by definition the first President to do absolutely every single thing he did as President. Adams was the "first president to be a Unitarian", but only because the previous president wasn't. Virtually none of the religious "firsts" have any substantial commentary other than by fans of that denomination (possible exception being JFK, whose Catholicism did generate widespread discussion), but JFK as "first president to be assassinated and die on the same day"? How arbitrary is that? What defines "first president to have a son marry in the White House" as a significant first? Why should we include historical inevitabilities like the first president to ride in a motor car, something all would surely have done had the motor car existed? Why choose the number 10 for "first president to have 10 or more biological children"? Why not 7 or 5? What qualifies New York State as significant ("first president to be born in New York State")? First president to predecease his father? Is that significant? One or two of these may be notable in context (e.g. first president to travel abroad while in office, which might well be significant in an article on presidential foreign travel) but for the most part this looks like a list of things where people have a pet topic, have looked for the first president associated with the pet topic, and added it to the article. Guy (
help!)
10:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete trivia and indiscriminate, I can see some value in a list of political firsts as being relevant to the position of president but nearly all of this article is trivia.
MilborneOne (
talk)
10:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
No, it's not a core policy; they are listed at
WP:COPO and
WP:IINFO isn't one of them. In any case,
WP:IINFO does not apply. That policy seeks to exclude raw, undigested bulk data and lists four specific cases: lyrics, software versions, voluminous statistics and summaries of creative works. The page in question is none of these things nor is it anything like them. It's a highly focussed and specific list of presidential milestones, each of which is, by definition, unique – milestones like the first black president or the first president to be assassinated. This information not raw, excessive or indiscriminate. Such criticisms might be applied to something like a
list of presidential diary engagements, which listed just about everything which the presidents have done, but this is nowhere near that. The list's scope echoes that used by numerous reliable and secondary sources which express themselves in just the same terms and so we're good. My !vote stands.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
20:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: Honestly, I'm surprised it took five and half years for somebody to try and delete this. That being said, many reliable sources (far and above what Andrew Davidson has listed) have released lists of presidential firsts, so this passes LISTN and should be kept. The nominator's argument boils down to, "I don't like that certain things are listed, so let's delete the whole damn thing". If the nominator has problems with some of the individual entries on this list, the place for that is the article's talk page, not AfD pbp15:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Purplebackpack89, There are indeed lists of presidential firsts and all kinds of other firsts (magazines have to fill space). The question is whether the firsts in this list are selected according to objective criteria or whether it's an
indiscriminate collection of information. How do you square including anything other than "first president" for Lincoln Washington? What could he conceivably have been or done that did not qualify? And much of the rest actually fail the same test - things that would ave been impossible previously (first car trip), for example, or things that are inherent to the history of the US, not the presidency (first trips to X or Y country). It's nothing to do with liking or not liking what's included, the problem is the lack of any objective criteria to decide. Guy (
help!)
16:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
It's kind of hard for me to take you seriously when you referred to Lincoln as "first president" instead of Washington. Your comments again are arguing for deletion of the whole list because you disagree with some of the entries. Again, this isn't really an AfD matter, but I also believe some of your criteria for removing entries (such as things that would have been impossible previously) are arbitrary. pbp20:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
An inconsequential error I did not make in the nomination. Now, list all the things Washington did in office that were not done for the first time. Focus on the policy (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information) and demonstrate how this list somehow isn't indiscriminate. I am arguing for deletion of the whole list because there is no objective basis for deciding what goes in or out. For a list of Academy Award nominees, we have clear criteria. For a list of presidential firsts? Not so much. A lot of these read like those Guinness world records for "first man to stand on one leg for over four hours on top of a pole while whistling Dixie". I mean, yes, it's the first, but so what? Many of them are accidents of history (first president born after the declaration of independence was a historical inevitability and it's totally arbitrary which one qualified), some are matters of fashion (first president to have facial hair), some would have been impossible for any prior president (first president to ride in a motor car). You could perhaps defend it if every single item was supported by multiple references to "first president to do X" sources that establish that this specific first is considered independently significant, but it's going to be trivial to find one source pegging a specific president as first to do virtually anything, because that's the nature of trivia. Someone writing about the history of Marine One will note in passing that Eisenhower was the first president to travel by helicopter - but his predecessor was the first who could even theoretically have done so as helicopters were experimental until the mid 1940s at least. Arbitrariness, fashion and historical accidents are the hallmarks of this article. Guy (
help!)
09:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep I read through the article and see no reason to delete it. There are references talking about who was the first president to do things on the list. Perfectly valid article and quite encyclopedic.
DreamFocus17:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
In 1957 he became the first present to have a submarine named after him. Doesn't have to be while he was in office. Notable achievements or characteristics should be listed. Editors can use common sense to determine what to include and not, just discuss it on the talk page. Anything notable enough to be mentioned in reliable sources. The media comments that other presidents may have done something, but Washington was the first, such as the first president to stay in the real estate business
[18]DreamFocus10:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Anything actually relevant can be included on each president's page. This page is mostly trivia, and is very much an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because information exists in this world doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to reproduce it as a list.
Hog Farm (
talk)
20:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Two years ago I
removed a massive amount of the most ridiculous shit imaginable: Carter was the First President to mark the 40th anniversary of his
inauguration, the first presidents to win more than 1 million...2 million...3 million...up to 65 million votes in an election, Johnson was the First President to serve during the reign of Queen
Elizabeth II but not to have met her. I see the list has hardly improved since then, full of items that are full of pointless qualifiers (First president to be named Time Man of the Year for his reelection), countries visited, overly specific nonsense (First president to attend the NYC Veterans Day Parade while in office), routine basics (First president born in Missouri.), and generic tidbits of history (First president to have appointed a secretary of energy.). And of course anything Washington did would be the first president to do so... Few articles on Wikipedia are more purely indiscriminate trivia than this.
Reywas92Talk21:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep The list certainly needs trimming down. The inclusion criteria need to be very tight. Only notable things should stay on the list. Nothing unsourced should be on it. But there are many notable things on the list currently. I also note that the page is serving our readers: nearly 60k read it every month. This needs cleanup, not deletion.
Captain EekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓22:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I thought it was pretty clearly a LISTN pass. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists. This list fulfill recognized informational purpose.
Lightburst (
talk)
03:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Lightburst, notability isn't the issue. The absence of any objective inclusion criteria is the problem. First president to use a Blackberry, first president to use an iPhone, first president to use an iPhone 6, first president to use Twitter, where do you draw the line? Why did Washington not wear a digital watch or use a smartphone? Guy (
help!)
09:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Miraclepine, OK, so what, you'd start by removing everything from Washington because all of that is indiscriminate? And all historical accidents and things that were impossible for previous presidents absent the use of a time machine? Guy (
help!)
13:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment If this list is Kept I think it should be placed under permanent
semi-protection. There is always a low-level murmur of oh-so-clever vandal-edits. Putting the List under permanent semi-protection would remove some of that vandalistic-hubbub.
Shearonink (
talk)
19:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete this fails
WP:INDISCRIMINATE and
WP:TRIVIA (which does not technically exclude these types of articles, but this is a classic example of a terrible, all-trivia article.) The question really is: does this belong? While some non-Wikipedia sources do cover presidential firsts, they're typically just lists of trivia. The topic is probably notable in some way, but I have absolutely no idea how to salvage this article. I'd probably recommend giving it a stay of execution and selectively merging the important information to the presidential pages. Therefore, also calling into a bit of
WP:IAR, I'm basing my delete !vote on something found in
WP:TRIVIA: A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. This is a classic example of a disorganised, unselective list, and in a way that does not appear to be fixable.
SportingFlyerT·C12:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)reply
No.
WP:TRIVIA is irrelevant as it's not about material which some consider trivial. Instead, it is guidance to avoid sections within articles which are miscellania of unrelated facts and incongruous detail. As such, it is advice on how to structure an article and so has no place in a discussion of whether there should be an article at all. And the page in question has an appropriate and sensible structure – a section for each president. And the facts are not miscellanous because they are all firsts for that president and so have something in common.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
16:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)reply
This entire article is one giant blob of miscellaneous unrelated facts and incongruous detail, sorted by president. The fact the miscellaneous trivia share a topic makes them neither related nor unselective.
SportingFlyerT·C12:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Disagree. If they are sorted by president, then they are related. As for selective, this list factors out anything that didn't involve the people who became President of the United States. pbp14:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Your argument doesn't make any sense - the facts themselves are completely unrelated to other facts, many of them are unsourced, and this is mere trivia. The keep votes here are just a collection of useful/I like it votes, but this clearly fails
WP:NOT.
SportingFlyerT·C04:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - Per all of the reasons to keep mentioned above in this discussion. I am surprised as a long time user of Wikipedia that this is even a discussion. I may be new to this whole editing gig, but as a long time Wiki reader, I would expect this article to exist. It is definitely something I would look up. This is data that should be preserved, not thrown away because pieces of it seem arbitrary. If something doesnt seem right, needs citation, seems arbitrary, seems redundant or unnecessary, than edit it. Deleting the whole project in its entirety seems like overkill. If there seems to be something amiss or off about the material in said article, than use the talk page? I thought that is what it was there for. I love Wikipedia, Im a long time reader, and throwing articles like this away? History is not arbitrary, and this article documents history. To remove it seems like a severe waste. :( Again I would stress, that if something seems wrong with it, edit it. Do not simply get rid of it all... Apologies if I am out of line by adding my two cents, or how I am adding them. Still learning the ropes, if I screwed up a policy or guideline, hit me with my mistake. I need to learn to be a better editor yet, and have a lot to learn. Thank you.
SageSolomon (
talk)
03:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - I think this is encyclopedically fascinating and I'm with
Lightburst on this one - the article needs good editing to clean out the cruft and lists like this are valuable - maybe not to everyone, but to many of us, they are.
Missvain (
talk)
16:22, 20 January 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 article is a train wreck and seems to be in dispute. That's not a reason to delete in itself, but I can't seem to find any neutral, non-PR sources that I could use to clean the article up. So I'm afraid deletion is the only answer.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. I noticed this at the same time Ritchie333 probably did, because an IP editor tripped edit filters when removing material from the article. In investigating that, I realized that not only was the removed material based on primary sources and blogs, but there is no independent significant coverage of the company, just PR and passing mentions. --
RL0919 (
talk)
15:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: An article on a company going about its business. Announcements of office locations or completed installation tasks are routine coverage, nor are the awards and listings significant for
WP:NCORP.
AllyD (
talk)
09:06, 27 January 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.
I can find no way that this list of shows and tours passing either
WP:GNG or
WP:NTOUR. The article is unsourced (and has been tagged as so since 2005). Almost all of the search results I can turn up for this appear to be Wikipedia mirror sites, although some appear to be related to the band or are other non-RS like Discogs and ticket sites. I recommend a redirect to
The Corrs.
Hog Farm (
talk)
14:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete As far as I can tell this is a list of random events and festivals they have performed at, with no context or evidence of them being notable, either standalone or collectively. Not sure of need for a redirect as the name of the band is in the title.
Mattg82 (
talk)
20:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - It would help if the article's author attempted to list ALL tours by the band and all individual shows within each, but even that would suffer from the notability issues mentioned by the nominator and previous voter. This article looks like a work in progress that someone forgot about many years ago, and even so it does not attempt to state the notability of what it is trying to cover. Individual tours can have their own articles if each satisfies the requirements at
WP:NTOUR. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)23:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete – Just a list of concerts from the Corrs. Perhaps it would be more valuable to have articles about their tours, when they pass GNG.
Missvain (
talk)
21:00, 21 January 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.
That is purely hair-splitting. It is a degree college. And we have almost always kept these in the past. For your information, British polytechnics didn't award their own degrees either. But they were still notable institutions. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
16:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
@
KartikeyaS343: NORG states in the second paragraph: Simply stated, an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose. This includes commercial and non-commercial activities, such as charitable organizations, political parties, hospitals, institutions, interest groups, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, for-profit educational institutions or organizations, etc. —usernamekiran
(talk)18:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes I understood but why do you think it is a for-profit educational institutions? At least this is not any private education institute but a accredited college.
KartikeyaS343 (
talk)
20:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)reply
@
KartikeyaS343: Hi. If it was non-profit, then it would have been mentioned on the college listing websites, or somewhere in the article itself; and somewhat because of the entries
like these. —usernamekiran
(talk)22:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)reply
delete I couldnt find any
reliable source even remotely mentioning the college. I could find only one non-reliable source stating the college was closed down, it didnt mention when. @
Necrothesp: I have seen you around in
WP:RM a lot, and I respect you. I think you are not familiar with colleges/system from India or Pakistan. They are simply business. Unlike in other countries, first of all you have to pay the fees. In case of education loan, it is not the responsibility of the college. It is either of the government's responsibilty, or the student has get to loan from the bank. But the colleges demand the money up-front. Pure business. Vandalism of this article:
special:diff/409613661. It has been at least 9 years since the college is down, and I couldnt find when it closed down. Only one non-reliable source mentions it being inoperative, but not since when. All other sources seems to be unaware that the college has gone defunct. That shows is how much notable the college is: nothing at all. —usernamekiran
(talk)19:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes, I entirely understand that. But there is no essential difference for our purposes between a for-profit college and a not-for-profit college. If they are accredited and award degrees they are generally considered to be notable. And being defunct is irrelevant to notability. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
09:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)reply
In Pakistan, every degree awarding college must get accredited before becoming operational. It is not a feat of achievement/notability. It is part of the basic requirement process. I didnt mean to tie notability with operational status. What I meant was, it is non-notable that even the local media/college listing websites havent noticed/acknowledged it been defunct since at least 9 years. They still show it operational. I couldnt even find the date when it went defunct, not any kind of sources. I am saying such disregard by these sources shows lack of notability. —usernamekiran
(talk)09:35, 27 January 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.
every single source in this is basically the same and all "fake" news sites published by black hat SEO firms. I can find no actual coverage of Bundini in reliable sources.
Praxidicae (
talk)
14:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete The use of fake news sites to give the impression of notability means this article was almost certainly created for promotional purposes. Best,
GPL93 (
talk)
16:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Question As the creator of the previous AFD submission for this person, I have no ardent desire to have him found notable, but, aside from Thrive Global, which states explicitly that that section of the site is for anyone who wanted to sign up as a contributor, what basis is there for judging all the cited sources as fake?
Largoplazo (
talk)
19:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete – What a weird bunch of sources this search pulled up. All non-mainstream publications or just passing mentions of him posing in photo for a lifestyle magazine. A lot of promo content, too.
WP:TOOSOON.
Missvain (
talk)
21:07, 21 January 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 The process being used her is why I think we should only allow new articles to be created by AfD. This would probably require more people to focus on AfD, which might be hard to bring about, but it would save us headaches.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
23:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
delete the subject fails
WP:GNG, as well as
WP:NACTOR. Also support speedy delete as
WP:SNOW can be applied. @
John: I am not sure what you meant. Sometimes, I think any registered users should be allowed to create new articles, and sometimes I think we should set the bar to extended confirmed. —usernamekiran
(talk)06:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I meant "only allow articles to be created through AfC". In the early days of Wikipedia we allow non-registered users to create articles. 4 Tolkien related articles were created one day back in December 2002 by one non-registered user. one was on
Barahir which never had any sources for the next 17 years until it was deleted this month.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
14:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Hey
usernamekiran &
Johnpacklambert you both have sound & valid arguments here. The thought that anyone can create an article is borderline annoying & for relatively new users I feel they should be compelled to submit their articles via the AFC until they prove they have grasped the concept of notability.
Celestina007 (
talk)
15:54, 21 January 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.
12: They have been/are the featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across national radio, i.e. their ongoing show on TBS Radio, as mentioned in the article.
Nonnel (
talk)
14:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep as passes criteria 2 and 5 of
WP:NMUSIC with charting albums on a recognised national chart and two albums on a major label; they also have coverage in reliable sources such as Rolling Stone, imv
Atlantic306 (
talk)
00:22, 26 January 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.
Fails
WP:GNG. This is an advertisement for a local
historical society, which contains both details on that organization's programming not suitable for an encyclopedia, as well as a fair bit of unsourced local history.
Daask (
talk)
12:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete -- I see nothing notable in this. It might be merged as a brief Heritage note appended to the bio-article on Mossby. This could have a link to the association's website, which they can probably be trusted to keep up to date, whereas this article would need regular maintenance.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Not a good idea. This is large, active regional historic and landscape preservation association that should not be made to disappear into an article about a Civil War officer.
IceFishing (
talk)
20:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep When nominated, article had no embedded sources (there were some sources in a list at the foot of the page.) I have added multiple reliable sources to the article. And removed the promotional tone. Certainly the page can use improvement, but this organization is a player in the development battles that rock this region, a D.C. suburb/ex-urb in the Northern Virginia tech belt that is one of the fastest growing regions in the U.S.. Recently, this Association led the fight that put the historic black (freedmen) hamlet of
Willisville, Virginia on the National Historic Register. Respectfully requesting that
User:Daask and
User:Peterkingiron consider revisiting this discussion. Thank you,
IceFishing (
talk)
18:35, 16 January 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.
A board game which failed to get any attention beyond a single review in a magazine which seems to have reviewed pretty much every game they got a copy of. Even boardgamegeek simply copies the official text and adds one line of commentary in parentheses. Nothing else in the 26 Google hits seems to indicate actual notability for this game
[22].
Fram (
talk)
13:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - The short review in Dragon appears to be the only coverage this board game received in secondary sources. The remainder of the sources that can be found are either simple database listing (such as the BGG link currently in the article) and sales pages. This does not pass the
WP:GNG.
Rorshacma (
talk)
16:02, 20 January 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.
One "short and sweet" review (cf. the name of the section this review appeared in), a listing in what can be described as the Imdb of board games, and that's about it. 42 Google hits
[23] don't reveal more useful stuff, just commercial sites and more wikis.
Fram (
talk)
12:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete/Possible Merge - A single, self-described as "short", review in Dragon is the only secondary source that is useful for establishing notability. The BGG entry is, of course, not a valid source for establishing notability. So, the product fails the
WP:GNG. As the parody was an officially licensed spin-off of BattleTech, it could potentially be mentioned at
List of BattleTech games, in which case this could be used as a Redirect there.
Rorshacma (
talk)
16:16, 20 January 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.
A single review isn't sufficient to establish notability, and I couldn't find anything helpful among the 49 Google hits
[24]. Publisher doesn't even have an article, so no obvious redirect target either.
Fram (
talk)
12:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - The single review in Dragon is, alone, not close to allowing this product to pass the
WP:GNG. All other sources are, like the RPG.net link, simple database entries that do not establish notability. Neither the publisher nor creators are notable themselves, so there is no appropriate redirect or merge target.
Rorshacma (
talk)
16:21, 20 January 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.
A single review in a niche magazine. Rpg.net is just a database listing. Other sources I could find were similar: commercial sites like Amazon, fansites, database listings... but no sources actually establishing notability. Since this is a supplement to a game that doesn't even have an article apparently, no good redirect target.
Fram (
talk)
12:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Per usual for these, the Dragon review is the only coverage this game received, and even that was not much. The RPG.net source is, of course, not useful for establishing notability, as it is nothing more than a database entry for the product, and, in this case, doesn't even appear to be about the correct game. Complete failure of the
WP:GNG.
Rorshacma (
talk)
16:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Per nom, more of the usual RPG cruft. No copies listed in Worldcat. How many pages is this thing? Is this a book, a booklet, or a pamphlet? Why would we assume that an ephemeral whatever for a non-notable product line based of a barely notable game system is notable? What a waste of time.
Grayfell (
talk)
00:41, 24 January 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 keep. Keeping - please consider improving with the sources provided by
sillyfolkboy and if there are still concerns, consider PROD. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith!
Missvain (
talk)
18:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I can't find any good sourcing for this that makes it notable by our standards, in books or news. (More notable, it seems to me, is the bicycle race under the same name.) The current article is really just a semi-promotional entry.
Drmies (
talk)
16:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Not my area of expertise, but the race has had coverage in several prominent Italian newspapers which makes the topic appear to meet general notability in my view.
[25][26][27][28]SFB20:51, 13 January 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 orMerge with
Albert Rothstein because
WP:NEXIST: A Google Books search shows that there's coverage in multiple secondary sources.
All-Star Companion vol 4 and
The Alter Ego Colletion are media criticism books about DC Comics. Also mentioned in Up, Up and Oy Vey!: How Jewish History, Culture, and Values Shaped the Comic Book Superhero and All New, All Different?: A History of Race and the American Superhero. There is also coverage of the character appearing on the TV version of The Flash in
Techtimes and
Comingsoon.net. --
Toughpigs (
talk)
03:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
That character has its own article, so those are irrelevant to this article. The sources would need to be about the "Gerome McKenna" character.
TTN (
talk)
03:06, 13 January 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.
Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No evidence that this is or was a populated place; satellite view indicates that this may have been a railroad junction. –
dlthewave☎21:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes, my BEFORE search turned up a few sources like these. Frankly I don't see how any of the newspaper articles could be used to improve the article. Snippets like "At Angell, the force of the quake was great. In the house of the railroad agent, furniture was. moved" and "This will include the sightseeing service to the Grand Canyon from Flagstaff and Williams. Flagstaff water is being shipped to Winslow, Williams, Ash Fork, Seligman, Angell and the Grand Canyon in tank cars by the Santa Fe" mention the topic in passing but are not useable for creating article content. –
dlthewave☎02:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete No evidence this was any kind of legally recognized place. The trivial mentions above are not enough to meet GNG per GEOLAND#2. WP does not serve as a gazetteer (without regard to notability). GEOLAND specifically says "WP has features of a gazetteer; therefore, geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable." A collection of trivia does not establish notability. This may have been nothing more than a water tank during the steam engine period and/or a telegraph relay station. Certainly reasonable to mention in
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway and redirect, but that article doesn't current get into this level of detail.
MB03:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep as a legally recognised settlment.
This source makes a clear contrast between Angell which it calls a "small settlement" and for example Anita which it calls a "small station".
This source states "Padre Canyon is deep and serpentine; a portion of Route 66 was built across it connecting the towns of Winona and the long-gone town site of Angell on the railroad’s main line. Here was the nation’s first commercial tourist camp in 1920".--
Pontificalibus09:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep In addition to the above sources, I own physical road maps of Arizona by three different mapping companies (
H.M. Gousha Company,
Rand McNally, and R. E. Donnelly) from the late 1960s and early 1970s. These are statewide maps distributed by gasoline companies for the traveling public, not maps of every ranch and station in a small region, and yet all three maps not only include Angell but explicitly mark it the same way as other cities. That seems like pretty clear evidence to me that this was a permanent settlement. (While I can't upload the maps due to copyright issues, I can provide the relevant sections over email by request if necessary.)
TheCatalyst31Reaction•
Creation04:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Actually, you don't have to go as far back as the 1970s, because I checked the
official 2019 highway map from the Arizona Office of Tourism, and Angell is included. Again, that's a tourist map for the general traveling public, not a comprehensive map of all locales. General-purpose maps have been used as both secondary sources and evidence of notability for highways as long as I can remember, since they distill a broad range of geographic data into the most relevant and significant roads and features; I see no reason not to apply the same logic for settlements.
TheCatalyst31Reaction•
Creation05:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)reply
comment I'm still a bit dubious about notability but the one thing we cannot claim is that it is a populated place. We have no evidence that it was ever anything beyond a rail junction; dots on maps really aren't good enough evidence.
Mangoe (
talk)
21:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Geoland-related discussions often seem to rest on pretty fine distinctions about what constitutes legal recognition, if somewhere is populated and to what extent, and how much sourced information we need to be able to find to make an article worthwhile. In this case I find the evidence raised by
TheCatalyst31 sufficiently compelling to opt for keeping.
Hugsyrup07:18, 25 January 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.
Gives no indication of their editorial standards, looks like a hobby blog and while follower count is meaningless I highly doubt a magazine with a whopping 22 followers on twitter has the required reach and editorial standards we require
this is laughably bad as a source and should be blacklisted. It is part of the same set of scam/spam pay for press sites created by blackhat SEO's to spam clients. Take a look at the very first "staff" profile [https://www.theamericanreporter.com/our-staff/ here]
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete the first source, Magazineplus.com, offers "Sponsored Guest Posts". The second source, seekerstime.com, has a contact address that does not exist. The third source, The American Reporter, has an editorial policy that makes clear they will publish anything you like. The lead article on theAmericanreporter.com right now is titled "Mortgage Broker in California" and is very helpful if you are looking for a mortgage, as they link to the brokers. The fourth source, kazimagaine.com, does not have any listed contact info. Number five, thesource.com, is
published by a music marketing company. And so on. I hate to use the phrase, but these sources are all a kind of news that rhymes with cake. GNG fail.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
07:21, 21 January 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 says "Ashtanayika are the eight companions of Goddess Durga" but
Durga doesn't mention these companions. A search turns up various spellings of
Ashta Nayika which is about 8 heroines. One of the sources is
[36] which is speculation and clearly not an RS. I removed that and then realised some of the names of the companions were about other subjects, and further investigation made me think AfD is appropriate. I also found the source of the image which I hoped would be enough, but isn't.
[37]Doug Wellertalk11:10, 20 January 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 person seems to lack notability. Numbers of the references used are particularly poor, and seen to be dubious or vanity links, and not considered reliable sources —
billinghurstsDrewth11:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete promotional article with no indication of notability (the Yahoo source is a press release provided by Accesswire). -
Zanhe (
talk)
02:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - All sources are either primary, PR releases, or just plain fake news/spam/blackhat SEO sites (including the ones added by
User:Achiiiiver), so notability has resoundingly failed to be established here. —
Coffee //
have a ☕️ //
beans //
12:47, 23 January 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 claim is that she is the : the youngest 'Woman' to 'ski' to the south pole 'solo'. I see too many variables here, but I admit skiing to the south pole is no simple task. The case for mt Everest is weaker though.
Daiyusha (
talk)
11:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep - I would entirely agree with the contributors above that achievements and level of coverage mean that the article clearly meets notability guidelines.
Dunarc (
talk)
20:24, 23 January 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 in article or online. May be a speedy A7 candidate, but since I first prod'ded it it seems not right to then tag it for speedy, so here we are.
Fram (
talk)
09:55, 20 January 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 Draftify. The page's author has indicated that they would be happy for the page to be draftified until it is worked up into a more complete article.
GirthSummit (blether)17:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
This is just a dictionary definition, sourced to an online dictionary. Ideally, we'd redirect to
Americanophilia, which is what the article ought to be called if we are to have an article about this subject, but since that article doesn't exist I don't see what else to do. (Happy to support a redirect to an appropriate target if one can be identified)
GirthSummit (blether)09:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Even if it is currently just a dictionary definition at this point, this is a relevant enough topic that deserves its own page. More edits will be made. There are no appropriate targets where this can be added to which means that it, with some more additions, is a viable page.
PiPhiTau (
talk)
15:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
PiPhiTau, it's possible that we should have an article on Americanophilia, and I wouldn't be averse to this being draftified while you work it up into an article with appropriate reliable sources, but as it stands it's a dictionary definition, sourced to a dictionary, which per
WP:NOTDICTIONARY isn't really a valid article.
GirthSummit (blether)17:04, 21 January 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.
Inadequately sourcing for a blp. All we have is that she sold herself - either on camera or in a brothel and that is UNDUE unless we can properly source the rest of her life.
SpartazHumbug!15:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak keep I'm reflecting back on my revamp of the article and the sources - primarily small mentions. The most significant coverage I could find was around an arrest related to an outstanding warrant and the drama that ensued around it.
Missvain (
talk)
20:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep There's enough here from reliable sources to satisfy GNG. It's not only one aspect of her life that's covered in the sources. The photo with the cop was newsworthy. The involvement with the serial killer case was newsworthy. The AVN awards were newsworthy and sourced to a RS and not just AVN.
Side note, irrelevant to notability, The comment in the nomination about "sold herself" is not a particularly sensitive way to describe a sex worker. It reflects a value judgment that ill befits comment on wikipedia about a living person. She sold a service. She appeared in adult entertainment. Those things can, and should, be mentioned without the slant.
David in DC (
talk)
Delete. This is about a person who worked in porn and as a prostitute without making any waves in either field that would satisfy
WP:NACTOR/
WP:NMODEL, and once got arrested by the police. It does not get more trivial than that. The sources are a joke: The Miami New Timesarticle is about a Leroy C. Griffith, "pioneer of porn" (at least as far as Miami is concerned, apparently), who manages sex dancers, among whom is Strong; the citation of a
book about the infamous
Mustang Ranch where our subject used to work (she is indeed mentioned a couple of times among the staff); a
work of fiction (!); and then sources to news reports about her arrest or the arresting officers posing with her, along with porn websites tesifying that she starred in adult ware and won awards. -
The Gnome (
talk)
00:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
She was neither an actress or a model, so she has no more need to meet those than she needs to meet
WP:FOOTBALL. The question is whether she meets
WP:GNG, and these repeated misunderstandings of of guidelines add nothing to these discussions.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
08:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Still can't see the direct link between WP:PORNBIO and WP:ACTOR/WP:NMODEL, huh? Our subject is listed as a " former pornographic actor." And here is what
WP:ACTOR says, actually, quoted for your perusal: "Previous criteria for pornographic actors [i.e. WP:PORNBIO] were superseded by the above [i.e. WP:NACTOR] and the basic guidelines after the March 2019 RfC." Alla them porn actors from March 2019 onwards have their
notability assessed on the basis of GNG or the NACTOR specifcs. Clear?
-
The Gnome (
talk)
13:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Considering that the RfC didn't propose that language in
WP:NACTOR, the RfC closer didn't mention it, and the post-RfC discussion had a consensus to do something else entirely and it only existed because of some random user adding it anyway, I've removed it so we never have to have this discussion again.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
22:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes, adult film stars are indeed actors or actresses. One of my goals is to represent them with the same dignity allotted to their "mainstream" actor brethren.
Missvain (
talk)
21:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
They're not actors in the sense
WP:NACTOR conceives of, which is why it's basically impossible for anyone in porn to meet those guidelines; they're much more accurately seen as entertainers in this context (if one were going to try to pin an SNG to them). Nonetheless, there's never been a discussion proposing, let alone a consensus for, a requirement that they should have to meet
WP:NACTOR.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
22:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
The relevant SNG is
WP:Notability (people)#Entertainers, for which WP:ENT, WP:NMODEL and WP:NACTOR are shortcuts. It is meant to apply to entertainers of all types except musicians. That SNG also includes pundits and celebrities. As a performer of a role for entertainment of views, the porn performer meets the literal definition of actor. As a former stripper, the subject meets the loose definition of dancer. Finally the
RfC explicitly calls for porn stars to be evaluated under the entertainers. The WP:ENT criteria are attainable as long as independent reliable sources support the notability claims.
• Gene93k (
talk)
01:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - I was skeptical before, but after missvain and coffeeandcrumbs edits, I believe she passes WP:BASIC
[41][42][43] plus the multiple mention of her brotheling activities. Her awards and hall of fame status are evidence towards WP:ENT.
Morbidthoughts (
talk)
23:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)reply
For your references to general notability I won't respond any further but about the porn related regalia, I must point out that, after the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO, porn awards are not enough by themselves as evidence of notability. Otherwise, it'd be as if WP:PORNBIO were still in place, intact and omnipotent. -
The Gnome (
talk)
09:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete The sources in the article just look too close to tabloid journalism, and hence
WP:BLPSOURCES has to come into play. I found sources in a news search, but for a different Samantha Strong in the UK who was arrested for (but not convicted of) fraud, who doesn't look notable either. Therefore keeping this article would be problematic for people expecting the festival organiser to be suddenly confronted with information about a pornographic actress.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)reply
We do not delete articles on people whose "only notability derives from pornography": there is no such guideline, no such consensus, and Wikipedia is not
WP:NOTCENSORED. (This is not about this article per se, just opposing people posting intentionally misleading claims about notability guidelines in the hope that no one notices and it gets let slide.)
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
09:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: I am definately not trying to mislead anyone. Pornbio was
depreciated. If we take out the pornography notability what are we left with? As Ritchie333 has said below, not much. A Polaroid with police? My opinion is that we have a WP:PORNBIO and there is not other notability. So that is a delete per consensus on our People Notability discussion.
Wm335td (
talk)
21:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)reply
If the claim "The officers paid $15 for a glossy photo of them with Strong and $10 for a Polaroid photograph of Strong wearing only a g-string, which were taken after her performance at a Tucson strip club" (which makes up a significant chunk of the article) was cited in multiple pieces in the New York Times and the Washington Post, I might agree with you, but for this sort of subject, which involves treating living people respectfully and carefully, we need much more solid sourcing than local newspapers.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I appreciate your position, Ritchie333, and while I don't disagree that "New York Times" or "Washington Post" sources would be preferred, I still feel there is enough to meet GNG.
Dflaw4 (
talk)
11:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete striking my vote, thinking further on this as a BLP, there's
possibly some evidence the subject of the article is not interested in being remembered ("Then there are those girls who are just gone. Samantha Strong was from the ‘80s and it’s like...what the f*** happened to her?"). I realise that the wishes of the subject of an article do not determine whether an article exists and we can't discern that here anyway, but this caused me to rethink my !vote here. Looking at this again, I can see that there is not much depth here to satisfy
WP:ENTERTAINER: no significant productions, no evidence of a fan base and there is no evidence of "unique, prolific or innovative contributions".--
Goldsztajn (
talk)
23:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete We do not keep pornbios any more without
WP:SIGCOV. The pornography awards are not notable either. I agree with the notion that the photo taken with police makes up a lot of the article. We certainly do not have SIGCOV, and so I cannot see that this person passes.
Lightburst (
talk)
23:48, 30 January 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 and move
Elder Sign (card game) here. The fictional element is, as mentioned in the nom, not sufficiently covered in a way that would allow this to pass the
WP:GNG. Searches bring up plenty of mentions of it within fiction, but no actual real-life analysis. The tabletop game with the same name, however, is notable, and most of the sources that come up during searches are actually talking about it rather than the fictional element it was named after. So, if this article is deleted, the game's article should be moved to this space to be the primary subject.
Rorshacma (
talk)
16:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
To the extent that it can be cited that the card game is in fact named after this, an abbreviated version of this content could be kept as part of the history or background of the card game, which would effectively then be merged over this page rather than resulting in wholesale deletion. The edit history could be maintained through a round-robin swap to the resulting redirect.
BD2412T02:10, 21 January 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.
Redirect This is a named crossing of the
Little Colorado River. Redirect there where it is mentioned as a one of two historic crossing points. The road to the west is "Wukoki to Black Falls Crossing Road" and to the east it is either BIA 6730 or 6735 depending on the map. But the crossing is not any kind of populated place. See also
this and
this for further confirmation.
MB00:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I think Black Falls could be notable as a named feature for which more than statistics exist, and there's newspaper reports calling it an area where people live such as
[44], and
[45] calls Black Falls a "trading post" confirmed by
[46], and
[47] seems to discuss the falls significantly. Also a lot of other articles out there about people who used the ford throughout history, like the "Mormon Trek." So this could technically pass both GEOLAND and the "named natural feature" test, but it would have to be renamed just to Black Falls, Arizona.
SportingFlyerT·C04:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I could be mistaken, but the article describing a 100-foot drop from a 300-foot-wide precipice seems more consistent with the nearby
Grand Falls, Arizona. None of the other sources seem to describe Black Falls as anything more than a large riffle. –
dlthewave☎20:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Black Falls Crossing is a natural geographic feature that passes GNG (
[48],
[49],
[50],
[51] etc) Black Falls Trading Post was a populated place located there that also passes GNG (
[52],
[53],
[54],
[55] etc). See also Table 6.10
here entitled "sites associated with Black Falls Crossing"). Additionally, according to
this a fort was erected at Black Falls in 1868. A strategically (noted by early settlers
[56],
[57]) and geologically important site supported by multiple sources. This could be a feature-class article if people can get complete access to on- and offline sources. If that's not enough there's whole bunch of stuff on
Uranium mining and the Navajo people#Community involvement and response concerning the Black Falls community. People do currently live there e.g.
[58]: "Yazzie's home is atop a yellow hill in the rolling spread near Black Falls, a wide riffle in the Little Colorado River when it's running"
and "the Navajo People of the remote community of Black Falls Arizona was awarded a $20,000 Environmental Justice Grant to address uranium-polluted drinking water sources". ----
Pontificalibus13:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment A page move to "Black Falls, Arizona" or "Black Falls Trading Post, Arizona" seems appropriate given the new sources. we should exercise caution with sources that simply use Black Falls as a landmark (the wagon party that camped near Black Falls, the fort that was between Black Falls and Grand Falls, someone who lived on a hill near Black Falls) but there seem to be plenty of useful sources even if we disregard these. –
dlthewave☎20:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)reply
It seems “Black Falls” has long been used to refer to an informal area around the crossing. It probably makes sense to have the article primarily about the geographic feature, and then include sections on the trading post, the fort, the current community, and other human uses associated with it. That way anyone trying to find out about Black Falls, Arizona will hopefully find what they want in one article. The title can be changed in due course if necessary.—--
Pontificalibus21:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Unless there is something notable on it or something of historical significance happened there, listing a place does not make it notable.
PenulisHantu (
talk)
05:25, 19 January 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 fails to establish notability. Current secondary sources seem to all be trivial mentions that do not equate to the significant coverage necessary to pass
WP:GNG.
TTN (
talk)
22:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - It seems that this was nominated and kept at a previous AFD due to the claim that it was discussed in secondary sources. However, actually looking in to it, it would seem that the only bit of non-in universe information that is being supported by those secondary sources is that the fact that they are based off of the mythological
centaur. That one, rather common sense, fact is really not enough to establish notability, and the coverage about them in non-primary sources appears to be too trivial to pass the
WP:GNG. As with many of the other well-known mythological creatures, there is a expansive
in popular culture article where this version is already mentioned, so a possibly redirect after deletion may be possible.
Rorshacma (
talk)
23:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, Article fails
WP:GNG, the non-primary sources do not provide anything more than passing mentions, and are mostly used to source a list of appearances in various Dungeons and Dragons media.
Devonian Wombat (
talk)
03:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss where to redirect or merge to, if anywhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
So far the discussion was if there is enough treatment in secondary sources for the subject to be notable on its own. But as there is content based on primary and reliable secondary sources, how can there be nothing to preserve?
Daranios (
talk)
16:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
If these reliable secondary sources do not actually state anything other than in-universe information, "This monster appeared in this work" and other variants of passing mentions they do not create information that is necessary to preserve. I mean, the information that the Centaur appeared in Tall Tales of the Wee Folk is not going to contribute anything to any other article, so there is no reason to merge it.
Devonian Wombat (
talk)
20:44, 21 January 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.
I do not even see anything that would amount to even a claim to notability--the nearest is vice chair of a branch of one of the less notable 20th century organizations in the field. DGG (
talk )
07:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
She was notable in that she was a Scottish Suffragette.
Clareleethompson
A large number of women were Scottish suffragettes, although most suffragettes were not notable. Just as most political activists today are not notable. Wikipedia rules clearly require that notability must be established by finding reliable, secondary sources that demonstrate notability and adding them to the article.
IceFishing (
talk)
16:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
so, as I mentioned, had she been the chair of the Scottish branch of her organization , I would not have challenged the article; but she was only vice-chair. What we should be doing to expand coverage of notable women (and men) is to look for sources for the heads of national organizations, and see what we can find for them, or at least make a list. We normally do consider the heads of major national organizations in each field to be notable . DGG (
talk )
16:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the challenge to improve the article! Have added a number of references, and looking for more. She was at one time the chair, honorary secretary of, and organiser for the Women's Freedom League in Glasgow.
Clareleethompson
Here's the thing. All of the sources except one come from the house organ of the Women's Freedom League, making them primary sources. The only one that doesn't is from The Glasgow Herald, but it is not an obituary by the newspaper staff, but, rather it is a letter from someone who knew McLelland and therefore also a primary source,
IceFishing (
talk)
13:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Do you have access to newspaper archives from the time she was McClelland was active? There could be write-ups of her/the organization's activities. Are there any books that cover the suffrage movement in Glasgow?
DiamondRemley39 (
talk)
13:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Alas this subject doesn't meet general notability guidelines. I can't find anything - maybe passing mentions. Even the references in the article appear to be passing mentions, just a guess. I don't mind primary sources, just mentioning the subject or saying that the person was a member of a group or supported an effort isn't enough. Other suffragettes have reliable secondary source coverage. Sadly not every feminist gets a Wikipedia article!
Missvain (
talk)
21:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - I cannot find a mention of her in the 1995 version of A Guide Cause - The Women's Suffrage Movement in Scotland, by Leah Leneman which is usually regarded as the main history of the suffragettes in Scotland, which would make me concerned about notability. That said it is possible that since Leneman's death a more recent researcher has uncovered material to suggest she was significant in the movement, but without that I think it is difficult to argue for keep based on her work as a suffragette (which is a pity as I am always reluctant to see article about female activists being deleted).
Dunarc (
talk)
23:53, 21 January 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.
This entire article is an advertisement that has been marked as such for more than five years. I started trimming it, but then realized it has no reliable sources. I searched for some, but can't find anything other than directory listings and passing mentions. It's time to delete this ad. —Torchiesttalkedits04:40, 20 January 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.
Make it a draft, I think what's on there can be kept, but it shouldn't be lost forever. I agree that there really isn't enough info about him on the page and people haven't worked on it fully yet, which is why the article doesn't look good enough to be published on mainspace. Changing it to a draft temporarily will ensure that what's in the article now can be added onto and expanded with more info so it can then be put back on later. (Similar to what happened to the Tom Hessert article.) It should be noted that while I was the one who put in his East Series results the other day, I did not create the Chuck Buchanan Jr. article. It was created back in March 2018 if you look at the edit history. I hope that it will just become a draft and not completely deleted. Thanks.
Cavanaughs (
talk)
04:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Cavanaughsreply
Dear Willsome, I just edited the article to the extent that it looks complete enough. Please read it when you can. It now talks in detail about his K&N East Series career (the series he has primarily driven in) as well as Trucks. There were previously just two sentences about him in the whole article in the "racing career" section and now there's way more than that. Do you think we should keep it in mainspace or move it as a draft? It's your call since you're the expert.
Cavanaughs (
talk)
21:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Cavanaughsreply
Comment While it’s really the closing admin’s call and not my call, I’d support draftifying it. Almost all of the content added is unsourced and the portions that were had sources that merely gave a passing mention, not significant coverage. If others still think there may be sources out there that satisfy GNG, they can work on it in the draftspace, provided it goes through a proper review process and doesn’t circumvent the AFC process.
Willsome429 (
say hey or
see my edits!)
16:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete or Userify if one of the above editors wants to preserve it for future expansion. Even after the attempts to provide refs above, this is still almost entirely sourced to simple database entries. Since this is a part-time semi-professional that self-funds their racing, that is not surprising. At this stage in their career, the chances that they will obtain substantial notability are fairly slim.
Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)20:32, 28 January 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.
Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NGRIDIRON. Cannot find any evidence that Hicks played in the Arena Football League for the Sharks, and his ArenaFan stats
page is blank. According to
this, he had a run-of-the-mill two-year career at FCS Tennessee-Martin. Could not find any significant coverage after multiple searches. Eagles24/7(C)03:53, 20 January 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 Played for Division I FBS Cincinnati, but collegiate-level offensive lineman (in the absence of a major award such as All-America honors) rarely receive the type of significant coverage required to pass
WP:GNG. El-Amin appears to be no exception. The most "in-depth" coverage turned up by my searches relates to his 2007 arrest for felonious assault (e.g.,
here,
here), and such coverage is subject to discount on
WP:BLP1E grounds.
Cbl62 (
talk)
02:22, 21 January 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.
Fails
WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and is an unnecessary content fork. It is not common practice to have pages that are just stat listing for individual players, and since some of this is more advanced stats, like a performance breakdown per opponent, I think a merge to
Babar Azam would give the stats undue content weight. An external link to the relevant stats page, like how we link to Baseball-Reference to baseball players' stats, would suffice in this situation.
Hog Farm (
talk)
02:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - this is horrendous. It fails just about every criteria for what wikipedia is about, has no realistic notability and is either a direct copy from stats websites or original research based on those statistics.
Blue Square Thing (
talk)
06:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
User:Hog Farm - Of course not. That's because I invented the term just now. Just discuss the article, and this AFD and the MFD link back to each other, and let the closer deal with the MFD in the same way as the AFD. If we agree that this article can be sent to the
bit bucket, then the draft can go in with it.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
22:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Hog Farm, Where were they created first, at
Babar Azam or this article? That matters in terms of "redirect" or "delete." I realize that the stats were moved per
WP:NOTSTATS, though that isn't a firm rule. It's case-by-case based on the subject area editors. I've seen lots of articles with stats in them. If the subject area editors have a
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to include, they can be included. Nevertheless, that's really neither here nor there. What matters if the stats, while not in the current iteration of
Babar Azam, were added to this article, then my !vote is redirect/dual merge. Otherwise, if they were copied to this article, delete is the correct result. I maintain that
Draft:Babar Azam Statistics can survive irrespective of this
AfD as to delete it would be inordinately
BITEy and there are no notability guidelines in draft space.
Doug MehusT·C22:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)reply
This article was only created after the information was added to the main article twice and removed each time (by me). Unless there is clear consensus to include them at
WP:CRIC I'd do the same if they were added again.
Spike 'em (
talk)
21:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Spike 'em, Okay, then delete is fine for this article. However, know that one does not need to obtain consensus for inclusion at
WP:CRIC because, frankly, local consensus can exist, and does exist, on many, many articles that favour the inclusion of sports statistics.
Doug MehusT·C22:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Dmehus: I think the issue is less getting a consensus to have the stats, but more that an entire article containing literally only unexplained statistics goes against a lot of what Wikipedia is not. Also, the way the statistics are set up suggests that they are either
WP:OR or just copied straight off of some other website, both of which would likely be innapropriate for the only content in an article. I personally have no opinion on having some of these stats in the Babar Azam article, but I feel like having a page solely for publishing these stats is not policy-based.
Hog Farm (
talk)
23:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Hog Farm, Using statistics from one or more websites, provided it's not a wholesale cut-and-paste, is entirely appropriate, as long inline citations are provided to the applicable websites to attribute to the source. It wouldn't be
WP:OR if these statistics were reliably sourced, but in terms of whether it's appropriate, what I'm talking about is for junior or even NHL hockey teams and the like whereby, as part of a section of the hockey team's article, we include a table of the team's performance by year. It's not giving undue weight to the statistics. Nevertheless, it sounds like we're more or less on the same page here.
Doug MehusT·C23:46, 26 January 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. County commissioner is not an "inherently" notable role under
WP:NPOL, and single-sourcing the commissioner's existence to the county commission's own
primary source meeting minutes is not how you make a county commissioner notable enough to be considered special — at the local level of government, the notability test is the ability to write a substantive article, referenced to a significant volume of
reliable source coverage about him in media, that demonstrates his political importance, and is not just automatically passed by everybody who can show "staff" content on the self-published website of their own employer. I should note that at one time there was a longer article that made additional notability claims beyond county commissioner alone, namely his status as a published writer and cohost of a television reality show, but it was also based entirely on primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things rather than any evidence of coverage about him — so it wasn't making a stronger case for his notability on those grounds either, and was converted into a redirect to the show last year before being rewritten in this form within the past 24 hours.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:07, 20 January 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.
Fake sources: vernamagazine.com, apstersmedia.com, timebulletin.com are fake websites, operated by the same company that claims to be located at 445 E Ohio Street, Unit 2708 Chicago, IL, as do at least 60 other "news sites". A list is available at
/info/en/?search=User:Vexations/Fake_sources The one source that has a bit more credibility, timesofindia.indiatimes.com only credits a photu by Munna, but does not actually say anything about him. An photogallery of his famous wedding guests in photogallery.indiatimes.com doesn't have much to say about him either.
Vexations (
talk)
02:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. Can you expand on why you find the sources vernamagazine.com, apstersmedia.com, timebulletin.com to be unreliable? Being located at the same physical address does not seem like a clear indicator of being "fake". I don't see anything about the sites on
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard which is the standard venue to make this sort of determination.
BenKuykendall (
talk)
02:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: It seems that most of the people who voted delete needs to check again, there are enough reliable news sources from
The Times Bulletin,
International Business Times,
Times of India and several others on internet. He is a photographer, where you can't find everyday news coverage, however I am surprised to find that it is not even considered as to pass
WP:GNG. There cant be a different criteria when it comes to photographer, very easily pass GNG and ANYBIO.
Gandharraj (
talk)
04:49, 25 January 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.
Not seeing what makes this pass
WP:GNG/
WP:NCOMPANY. There is some coverage, but mostly in passing/press releases/local (ex.
[59]).
WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. On the other hand, it's a company with 200+ year history, and it could be notable - if we can find some decent coverage. My BEFORE failed, not seeing anything in books/scholar that goes beyond 2-3 sentences :( Maybe there is something more in
[60] but I can't get full access to this (do note, in either case: "The modern Ames True Temper was formed in 1999 when Ames, founded in 1774, and True
Temper, founded in 1809, were combined by their parent at the time, US Industries Inc "). A merger to
Griffon_Corporation#The_AMES_Companies could be a valid option here as well. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here22:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. I think that this is the same "True Temper" that was the brand of tubes for (steel) bicycle frames. Other major brands are
Reynolds and
Columbus; and googling for the three brands together brings up a lot of talk of True Temper and particularly of its demise. Of course, blog entries, forum chitchat and the like may not be the stuff of WP articles, but it does all suggest that something is there. I'll mention this AfD at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling. --
Hoary (
talk)
22:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Seeing as 2 weeks later, we have failed to turn up any reliable sources, I don't believe the company is notable. Of course, if someone presents new sources, I am willing to reconsider.
BenKuykendall (
talk)
02:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep It's real, an old, longstanding manufacturing firm in need of an editor with the time and access to sources - which are readily visible in searches I just ran.
IceFishing (
talk)
23:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep There appears to be numerous references that meet the requirements for establishing notability. I've linked to two books above and there's more.
HighKing++ 18:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)reply
The infobox already has a list of predecessor names, article needs an upgrade, which can start by moving this to the current corporate name. There really is no argument for deletion. It's just another article in need of an editor.
IceFishing (
talk)
21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)reply
We have sources. They're not optimal, but they're not negligible. So either keep, whether under its current title or as "Ames Companies"; or somehow merge it with
Ames Manufacturing Company or with
Ames Shovel Shop; or merge all three. (If the first among these options, we can probably ignore the "The" and we can certainly ignore the vanity capitalization within "The AMES Companies".) Which among these would be the best choice is something that I leave to editors far more experienced in US corporate histories than I am. --
Hoary (
talk)
23:09, 23 January 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 niche gathering. No sources in the article, and my own searching only turned up a few blogs, their own website, and similar non-
WP:RS. One comment from
the first AfD was, Wait for additional sourcing. Fourteen years later, still waiting. --
RoySmith(talk)01:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - I was unable to uncover anything of value in my search. Perhaps there is a non-English source or two (or three...four...) that are out there. I'm happy to reconsider if there are.
Missvain (
talk)
21:55, 21 January 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 article has had no reliable sources in the 13 years of its existence. I tried searching online for sources and could find nothing better than tabloid coverage to the tune of "you wouldn't BELIEVE what this former contestant looks like now". signed, Rosguilltalk01:12, 20 January 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.